Arian Christian Debater Challenges Trinitarian Christian Chat on the Trinity

[@KirinDave]

I hope you catch more of this. It's a bit like watching a really serious discussion about which fanatics to incorporate into an slashfic anthology.

[@realBreakfasttacos]

LOL right!

[@joeycrikey2594]

This IS funny. I appreciate the upload!

[@realBreakfasttacos]

I'm glad you enjoyed it!

[@Christfollower4]

Going into a room full of trinitarians as an Arian and absolutely refuting them one by one is pretty based. Nicaea may have won the day, but Arianism won the debate. Both historically and now

[@realBreakfasttacos]

Great point!

[@Deity_Vagrant]

Such exemplars of patience and understanding.

[@realBreakfasttacos]

Absolutely!

[@CesarScur]

8:45 "I don't understand how what you said makes sense", therefore "you are an insane individual" And that is why we need to humble. God bless you my friend. I often fall in such pride. Pray for me.

[@realBreakfasttacos]

Lol

[@shapeshiftingmonkey6667]

31:50 "Ill shut up!" continues to say " I will shut up " 30x

[@realBreakfasttacos]

LOL

[@jacetheshepard1917]

My God bless you and lead you to the light

[@realBreakfasttacos]

I hope you have a good day and see the truth here soon.

[@jacetheshepard1917]

@realBreakfasttacos Stop playing Rust, it's a low tier game, try Gun fire reborn, "IT'S BETTER FOR YOU" as Muhammad Hijab says. (Christianity is true)

[@Uryvichk]

Why, is there something cool in the light?

[@jacetheshepard1917]

@@Uryvichk coz the dark is lame, the light got God, the dark got Rust.

[@beedub_]

So “philosophically incoherent” just means “doesn’t agree with my dogma” now? Also, using “Inspiring Philosophy level apologetics” to malign their responses- golden 😂

[@realBreakfasttacos]

Great point!

[@Christfollower4]

Arian Christianity makes much more sense according to the bible

[@themaninblack5777]

I agree. I think it’s hard to argue against the first Christians being adoptionists and that being the proper context of most the New Testament writers

[@realBreakfasttacos]

Great point!

[@Uryvichk]

@@themaninblack5777 Paul quite literally states that not only is Jesus subordinate to God, he will eventually give back all the authority God gave him so that God alone can rule everything. It's right there in 1 Corinthians 15, one of the most famous and important chapters of the New Testament. Adoptionists, subordinationists, and "Arians" keep coming up in Christian history because people keep reading the book and noticing it doesn't say anything about a Trinity but does say that Jesus is inferior to the Father.

[@Uryvichk]

@@themaninblack5777 There is an argument you can make against it, but it's very, very funny in that it would be wholly unacceptable to Christians. That argument is basically the Celestial Christ idea, basically that people envisioned a heavenly and secret Messiah and only later transformed him into a human man on earth in the Gospel stories (or perhaps identified a real human man with the Celestial Christ they already believed in). You can get this out of 1st-2nd Century BCE literature like Daniel and the Two Powers in Heaven crowd and from early 1st Century CE figures like Philo and Paul. It's basically the Early High Christology believers carefully loading their gun, only to have the Mythicists rush in and grab it off the table.

[@themaninblack5777]

@@Uryvichk yes I think this is highly possible too. Richard Carrier makes a great argument for this if I’m remembering correctly

[@Uryvichk]

Taking notes on this one because it's one of those fun topics for me. For reference I am of the opinion both Arians and Trinitarians are incorrect in their Christology and interpretation of the New Testament and would think them wrong even if Christianity were somehow true, but I have no superior option because I'm agnostic and don't think Christianity actually can be made to make coherent sense while still cashing all the big metaphysical checks it wants to write. 00:30 First thing to note is that depending on the stripe of Arian, it would not necessarily be a conflation to call them a Unitarian. There's a lot of overlap and not everyone who is an "Arian" believes in what the later Church would call Arianism as the later Church defined it. Of course I don't yet know what this guy thinks. 01:05 Important point implied here that will matter later: Is the Trinity a salvation issue for Christians? It's not clear that it is, and if it isn't, then it's odd that it's treated like it is by Trinitarians. If belief in the message and acts of Jesus are what are important, then believing in his metaphysical relationship to the Father seems a mostly irrelevant matter on which people can disagree. 03:00 Well-poisoning; that's not what Unitarian Christians say about the Bible. Unitarian Universalists maybe, but that seems to be a conflation meant to associate any Unitarian Christian with UUs. 03:30 Paul literally calls Christ "the firstborn of creation." Unitarians and Arians did not pluck this idea from thin air! 04:30 Interesting move to go on the attack against the Communicatio Idiomata rather than answer the scriptural question. This Arian's got moxie. 06:30 The Nicene Creed isn't even Trinitarian BTW. But also, who cares about creeds Trinitarians made up to enforce Trinitarianism, if Trinitarianism is wrong? 07:00 Guy tries to make a strong claim that Apostolic Succession is provable, realizes it isn't, walks it back with "probably." Sorry bro, "probably" ain't gonna cut it if you insist upon an unbroken chain of transmission. 07:50 I don't see how it's any easier to belive in Arianism, unless he means Trinitarianism sounds like nonsense and Arianism doesn't, in which case... uh, how is that helping the case against Arianism? 09:20 Good move to ask them what Nicaea actually taught. There is no Trinity in the 351 creed; the Holy Spirit gets literally a single sentence, and it's "And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit." Showing the Trinitarians don't know their own credal history is a strong blow to their credibility. 10:50 Nothing to add, he's correct about how the doctrine developed (though I think at one point he stopped himself from saying it was "invented," which is what I would say). 11:50 Augustine wasn't even born until 2 years after Nicaea, so if he did coin the term "Trinity," the creed written before he was born certainly didn't mention it. Only not a massive self-own by the Trinitarians because Augustine did not coin the term, and nobody claims he did. 12:50 If he's a heretic for quoting Tertullian, then was Tertullian a heretic? (To modern Trinitarians, most of the early Church Fathers would be.) 13:00 Of course the sect that won thinks they were guided by the Holy Spirit. The sect that didn't disputes that they actually were. This is not an argument, unless one can prove the guidance of the Holy Spirit somehow. Good luck with that. 13:35 Arianism isn't even close to the "biggest heresy ever." Maybe by number of adherents -- which is perhaps a hint there's something to it? -- but I'd think Manicheanism or certain Gnostic heresies would be bigger deviations from Christian thought. All Arians disagree on is the nature of Christ and his relationship to the Father. They still think the Father is Yahweh, that Jesus was his son, that he had a divine mission, that he died for sins, etc. 14:20 So the Arian thinks this isn't a salvation issue. That's very generous, though of course being in the minority, it's much easier to extend that olive branch. Who knows how Trinitarians would be treated today had Arian Christianity won out. 15:40 More Trinitarians not knowing their own doctrines. 16:30 I think there is a way around this question, but since these guys don't know their own doctrines, they can't catch on to what it is. It also doesn't matter, because Jesus says "the Son" doesn't know, which Trinitarians ought to be concluding applies to the divine nature. 17:40 "So he's half man-" and stops himself because even he knows that's wrong, LMAO. 17:50 "The man and the divinity." Depends; it may not actually be the case that Jesus is "a man" according to official formulations. But perhaps he means "the human nature." 18:00 Because he'd be lying, and God isn't supposed to lie? 19:40 Believing in Revelation? Big L for the Arian. Throw that drug-addled nonsense out. 20:30 I'm not convinced you NEED the Communicatio Idiomata to hold to a single person in Christ. Miaphysites and especially Monophysites don't need it. Monophysites are in the same boat as Arians in terms of being condemned as heretics, but even so. 21:30 Correct, the clear understanding of someone saying "I don't know" is that he doesn't know. We should presume this to be the correct interpretation unless compelling evidence rebuts it. 23:30 All the translations of Psalm 110 miss the distinction in Hebrew between the first and second uses of God/Lord. But obviously this is a psalm about the King of Israel, who was the Messiah (anointed one) and Son of God. Which doesn't help Trinitarians prove Jesus is God, since it implies the opposite, as those titles are applicable to a human. 26:00 Correct. It's one guy talking to another guy. You can't get the Trinity from that. 26:10 Also correct. Jesus is made Lord, given authority, etc.; this is all over the Gospels and Paul. 26:50 It's a royal psalm dedicated to the King of Israel and his special relationship with Yahweh, where is he getting that anybody is outside of time? 28:50 This is why Arianism isn't gonna work. The whole preexistence argument is goofy. But the Trinitarian can't really engage them on this honestly without compromising their own beliefs. 30:00 This guy is like a little kid who thinks nobody knows he's stolen a cookie. 31:45 "I'll shut up, I'll shut up" says man who never shuts up. 32:00 Not sure I buy this interpretation. It's simpler to just say that God can grant the titles to Jesus. He can make him Lord, why can't he make him the Alpha and Omega of the new creation, as the Father was Alpha and Omega of the old? 34:15 If the angel is speaking on behalf of God, then I suppose it's fine for him to say he's the Alpha and Omega. It at least matches scenarios that Christians accept from the Old Testament. Still don't buy it, but it's difficult for Trinitarians to refute it the same way a non-Christian can. 35:00 "Uh-oh, this guy differs in his interpretation of my knock-down verse and can support his reading! Time to just ignore it and cite a different one!" 36:15 Actually a pretty decent refutation for once. If the angel is stated to be the messenger of Jesus, wouldn't his claim apply to the one who sent him? 37:25 "All scholars say this is Jesus speaking." Oh, do they? Which ones? Are you sure none of them dispute that reading? Also even if it is a message from Jesus, he is most definitely not speaking, because the angel is speaking on his behalf. Because the angel is an agent, and angels are allowed to call themselves Yahweh when they speak for Yahweh or are conveying a message from Yahweh in the exact same way a messenger of a king can speak for the king to another king. The messenger does not become the king, they just have the authority to speak for him. 38:25 If Jesus is "the offspring of David," then he's not God, is he? God isn't the offspring of David. 40:00 "To give to everyone according to his works." Wait, so is Jesus a heretic for not believing in sola fide? 41:15 "Where the scholars say-" Can this guy name a single scholar? Just one. There are scholars who do say this, name one of them to show you have the slightest idea who even is considered a scholar of the New Testament. 42:10 Forty minutes in and somebody thinks to ask the guy what he actually believes, instead of calling him a Unitarian or Jehovah's Witness. Nice. 42:25 Calling him "the first creation" is Arian, so at least tacos's label appears to be accurate. 43:20 I don't think this guy was even trying to trap the Arian in polytheism, but that was clearly anticipated and sidestepped. Well played. 43:35 Man is also the image of God, but it isn't hard to separate Adam from God. Trinitarians always argue that it's rationality that makes one the image of God, since they want to deny that God has a body like the Old Testament clearly says he does. So the Logos, if it is rational, can freely be distinguishable from God while remaining God's image. This is not a difficult problem for an Arian. 43:50 Interesting argument though, that the image is distinct from the thing it represents. I think it's simpler to just point out that there are other non-God things that are God's image, but this is a fair point. Your reflection is not you, in the same sense a picture of a pipe is not a pipe. 45:00 The Gospels say Jesus began to exist in his mother's womb. Just throwin' that out there against both sides.

[@Uryvichk]

45:45 We're now three for three on professed Trinitarians not knowing what the Communicatio Idiomata is. This is like a Hindu going "Wait, what's a guna?" Also, depending on what kind of Christian these guys are, they might not even agree on how the CI works, as Calvinists have a different take on it than Lutherans and Catholics/Orthodox. 47:30 As I hear him describe the Communicatio Idiomata, I'm not sure he actually knows what it means either. All it means is that whatever can be said of one of Christ's natures can be said of the whole singular person of Christ, but in strict Chalcedonian terms it doesn't actually mean that things can be said to have happened to the other nature. It's a word game the Chalcedonian Creed uses to say that "Christ, strictly in terms of his human nature, died for sins" is the same thing as "Christ died for sins." It still means the first thing, they're just unjustifiably claiming they can say the second thing. This is exactly what the Monophysites thought was wrong with the Chalcedonian Creed: It doesn't actually let you say Christ died for your sins! 48:00 Strictly speaking, the Chalcedonian would say that "Christ, in his divine nature, possesses omniscience," and would reject that "Christ, in his human nature, possesses omniscience." The communication of omniscience to the whole Christ is just a rhetorical nudge and doesn't make the human nature actually omniscient, since a human nature cannot be omniscient. Christ "is omniscient" in the sense that he is possessed of at least one nature that is omniscient; nothing about the natures actually changes. The actual problem is that the Trinitarian can't possibly take Jesus saying "No one knows the day and the hour, not even the Son" to mean "No one knows the day and the hour, not even Christ in his human nature." Because "no one knows" means "no person knows," since only persons can be said to know things, which precludes Christ the person in his entirety from that knowledge. It is an utterly baffling reading to say this passage means "no nature has awareness of the day and hour except the divine nature," because the text doesn't say that, and all the other beings Jesus claims don't know are not natures, but persons. Also, he says "the Son," which is almost always associated with the divine nature: "The Logos/The Son" refers to the divine nature, "Jesus" refers to the human nature. Obviously this is totally arbitrary and goes against the Gospels clearly portraying Jesus as a single individual with just one mind and will, but it's an arbitrariness the Trinitarians themselves established. Shifting which nature they think something applies to just because it wouldn't work if applied the other way suggests their scheme is wrongheaded to begin with. 48:20 Okay, so they said he knows all things. That just makes the problem the Arian is posing worse, as it implies the disciples realized Jesus was lying. Also, "know all things" does not mean omniscience. Have these people read books before? It's an idiom for "all the important stuff," and we know this: The story of the Samaritan woman involves her going back and telling her people about how Jesus taught her "all things" about herself. Jesus told her stuff that he shouldn't have been able to know, which convinced her he was a prophet. He most certainly didn't make that woman omniscient, did he? 49:45 It is not "common sense" that only God can raise the dead. Perhaps it is "common sense" to a Christian that the power must come from God (for "only he has life in himself" etc.), but God can delegate that power to human beings according to the very scriptures these guys claim to believe in. Not only does Jesus do it with Lazarus, but Elijah and Elisha do it in the Old Testament. Literally nobody -- not Jews, not Muslims, not Jehovah's Witnesses, not Mormons, not Unitarian Christians, not Arian Christians, not Trinitarian Christians, not Scientologists -- thinks Elijah or Elisha were divine beings. They were human prophets who raised the dead with God's power because God lent them that power. Because that's what God does. In Exodus, Yahweh tells Moses that Moses will be "as God to Pharaoh," because Moses will work "signs and wonders" of divine power. But that's Yahweh's power, he's just lending it to Moses to use according to his divine instructions. There's nothing heretical or weird in Christianity about human beings getting superpowers, even those normally reserved to God alone, if God grants them those powers. Every single Abrahamic theist denomination thinks God can do that. 50:30 "Bring your verse and get cooked," says man about to get cooked when the Arian brings one of the many verses that say Jesus's authority is delegated to him. 50:45 Even the other Trinitarians laughed at bringing up "I and the Father are one." LMAO. Setting aside the decent answer given to this about John 17:20-21, which by itself sinks the argument, there's 1 Corinthians 3 where Paul says "He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor." Obviously Paul does not mean the planter and waterer are ontologically one, as it would be impossible for them to receive wages according to their labor if they were ontologically indistinguishable. Oneness means a unity of purpose. The Gospel of John says Jesus and the Father are one because Jesus is doing what the Father wants him to do... something Jesus himself says repeatedly in the same book. 51:35 Yes, the Father is "in" Jesus. He says that a bunch. If you see the Father's agent doing all the things the Father wants done using the Father's power, then you have (metaphorically) "seen the Father." You can't see God anyway, according to these people, so how can you see the Father any other way than through his operations in the world or through his designated agents, like prophets and angels? 52:30 "How can somebody be begotten without sharing the same essence?" I mean, literally, to have a son is to beget them, that's where the word comes from. Sons are not ontologically identical to their fathers. Even if every son were a direct genetic duplicate of his father, it would still not be the case that they share an essence. The only reason Trinitarians find this confusing is because they have to explain how the Son can be begotten of the Father while also being identical to the Father. The simple solution to the confusion is: He can't, so they don't share an essence. Which is what Arians, Unitarians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc. are saying. 55:00 Now the Arian brings up that the psalms refer to human kings. Weird he didn't before. Anyway see also John 10:34-36: "Jesus answered them, 'Is it not written in your Law, "I said, you are gods"? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came - and Scripture cannot be broken - do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, "You are blaspheming," because I said, "I am the Son of God"?'" Jews believed humans could in some contexts be called God, and Jesus calls them on this. One of them was the King of Israel standing in for Yahweh as the anointed leader of his people. The King of Israel is also the "Son of God." Jesus is calling himself the King of Israel, or at least as one who has the same role. 58:00 Begetting just implies temporality in general, I'd say, but he's fundamentally correct: To beget something is to bring it about. That implies movement from a point where the thing begotten isn't present to a point where it is. This language is such a problem for the Trinity that its defenders have had to invent the doctrine of Eternal Generation, something I'm not sure these Trinitarians have heard of either.

[@Uryvichk]

01:01:00 Why couldn't the Father beget something non-eternal? That argument doesn't even make sense if one presumes that God and only God is eternal, as then anything God brings about is going to be non-eternal. At least past-eternal, since the Bible says some things will never end (or at least will not end for a very, very long time). The divine kingdom on the New Earth will supposedly be eternal (in that it will last forever), but it obviously isn't an eternal thing, because it doesn't exist yet and will supposedly come into existence in the future. So God could create an "eternal" being in the sense that it will live forever, without it being required that the thing have already existed forever. 01:02:00 Christians are happy to cite Origen when it suits them to do so. Calling him a heretic is really funny considering that. Doubly so given that they've been talking about Tertullian and Athanasius, who held views that would absolutely be considered heretical today. 01:04:00 I don't see the problem with God creating stuff through someone else. It smells of Platonism, of course, but I don't see what would make it logically impossible to use another being as an agent or a conduit. An engineer constructs a bridge, but she doesn't physically go out there and assemble it herself; she passes on her design to construction workers who actually build it, but we'd still say she built that bridge, especially if there's some disaster and we're looking for who is to blame. If the bridge was built properly to specifications by the construction crew, but the specifications were flawed, we would not say that nobody can be held responsible for its collapse, nor would we accept the engineer's argument that she didn't build the bridge because she wasn't physically involved in its construction. 01:05:00 Oh all of a sudden now the Christians want to know how specifically God does something? But if I ask them how God speaking things into existence works, they tell me that's a silly question that is perfectly explained by defining God as omnipotent? Weird how they become skeptics when somebody's making inroads against their interpretations while still claiming their religion. 01:06:15 It is not incoherent. "The engineer built the bridge through the construction team." Same idea. I think it's wrong, but this is not the way to claim the Arian is somehow messing up. Better to cite Isaiah 44:24: "I am the Lord, the Maker of all things, who stretches out the heavens, who spreads out the earth by myself[.]" Doesn't change all the stuff he's citing saying God created through his Word, it just proves the Bible is multivocal and does not have a consistent opinion on how creation happened. 01:07:00 This guy doesn't understand what agency is. If your agent does something on your behalf, you are legally considered to have done it. If the engineer builds the bridge through an agent, she built it; if God created the universe through an agent, God created the universe. It may also be literally true that the agent did the thing. Agency is a representative fiction that we accept because we understand that people's intentions are sometimes carried out by someone else on their behalf. But also, in saying "God created through his Word," you're agreeing with Genesis 1, so I don't really know why they're so opposed to this. 01:08:20 "So the Son was there before anyone, so if the Son was there with the Father, and the creation happened for him and through him means they share the same essence." Right, so if the construction foreman was there with the engineer at the groundbreaking of the bridge, and the plans were made for the foreman and executed by him, then the engineer and foreman share the same essence. Oh wait, no, that's not the case, is it. 01:09:25 "Why?" I dunno man, why does God do anything? You'd probably say you don't know and it isn't your place to know, so why are you only now unsatisfied when an Arian says God created through an agent? I agree it doesn't make sense for an omnipotent being to do things indirectly, but if we accept that then no part of Abrahamic theism involving angels, prophets, or Sons actually makes sense. Why'd God forgive sins through the sacrifice of his Son instead of just forgiving sins himself? Same principle, same problem for you as for the Arian. 01:10:05 If he "chooses not to reveal" something he knows by stating he doesn't know, that's called "lying" my dude. 01:10:25 This Nicene Trinitarian debating the Arian accidentally reinvents the anti-Nicene argument for why the Nicene Creed was unacceptable: "Nobody used those words you're using like that." If you have no idea what any of this is about, trust me when I say this irony is delicious like a fine dollop of whipped cream atop a fluffy pancake. It's perfection. 01:10:45 Reporter asks the foreman when the bridge will be finished. "That's not for you to know," he replies, "as the timetable is set solely by the engineer." Does this mean the foreman knows the timetable? Not necessarily; the engineer might not have disclosed the timetable to the foreman. It's still true that the engineer knows even if the foreman does not. He's just saying it isn't his place to tell the reporter the timetable, which could very well be because he has no idea and doesn't want to say anything the reporter will repeat. 01:11:50 Let's see if they call Athanasius, who is arguing against Arianism, a heretic too. 01:13:00 "Every cult does this, they play games with the Greek and the Hebrew." My God, this man is just a walking irony dispenser. Bro: That's Christianity. That's how Christianity was invented, by playing games with the Greek and Hebrew of the Jewish scriptures. 01:16:30 The Gospels ARE speaking to Greco-Romans as well. That's why they exist. That's what they're using to sell the religion to Gentiles. The degree to which each writer is comfortable with utilizing and/or explaining Jewish customs varies from Gospel to Gospel, which speaks to the type of audience they were trying to reach. Jesus will say whatever the writer needs him to say to address the intended audience, because the Jesus of the Gospels is a fictional character in a work of fiction even if he's based on a real person. 01:18:00 "When will the bridge be finished?" asks the reporter. "I guess when all the supports are fully in place, the road surface is level and stable, and the engineer has conducted final safety inspections" answers the foreman. Does the foreman know the date this will all happen by? No, he just knows what the final stages of the construction will look like. 01:19:10 Actually, the writers of the New Testament favored the Septuagint, the Greek-language Old Testament. So arguably it's not at all important to know Hebrew to understand what they were thinking about scripture, because they didn't know (or at least, didn't use) Hebrew either.

[@Uryvichk]

TL;DR: The Trinitarians were badly underprepared to defend their own doctrine, displaying repeatedly their lack of awareness of orthodox terminology and the Greek and Hebrew words actually used by the original authors of scripture. The Arian stumbled a bit trying to explain preexistence, but that's because preexistence doesn't make a lot of sense either. The Trintarian attempts to attack the principle of agency are easily refuted by shifting the metaphor to something non-theological and easier to comprehend. Also, no one actually understands the Chalcedonian conception of the Communicatio Idiomata, possibly including the Chalcedonian council. I'd love to rumble with these guys but they'd probably just ban me once I tell them I'm not a Christian.

[@RaananZayith]

1 vs 10. Which one of those 10 is not afraid to join the 1 and be is his position of public condemnation.

[@Christfollower4]

The Arian absolutely wrecked the whole room and refuted them both both the bible and logic, yet he’s the heretic apparently….

[@realBreakfasttacos]

The Arian did wreck the room.

[@CrowManyClouds]

God, in His perfection, can't send His message clearly enough that these... folks can agree on what it means but I'm at fault for not believing any of it???

[@realBreakfasttacos]

Great point!

[@Uryvichk]

Look man, those who have seen the image of the invisible Father have seen the invisible Father, what part of this is confusing?

[@shiningdiamond5046]

9:55 "I've read athanasius and he never claimed Nicea was about the trinity" "And the whole faith is summed up , and secured in this, that a Trinity should ever be preserved, as we read in the Gospel, 'Go and baptize all the nations in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost' Matthew 28:19. And entire and perfect is the number of the Trinity; but the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, sent forth through the Son, came according to the promise, that He might teach and sanctify the Apostles and all believers." St athanasius, On the synod

[@KEvronista]

if "the whole of existence is foundational" cites a mere set of things, thus is only an abstraction, wouldn't "god - which is the father, the son and the holy spirit - is foundational" also cite a mere set of things, thus suffer the same inadequacy? KEvron

[@realBreakfasttacos]

Probably?

[@KEvronista]

@@realBreakfasttacos yeah, but i'm addressing tritarians i'd like to hear the special pleading that rescues the trinity from abstraction. KEvron

[@Uryvichk]

@@KEvronista I don't think there's any hope of that, since the Classical Theist ones will often say (if forced to do so) that the sole distinction between the persons of the Trinity is their relations. Ultimately, there's a trilemma every Trintiarian must answer. Either the three persons are distinct from one another in: 1) Some essential way; 2) Some non-essential way; or 3) No way. It can't be 1, because if the persons differ in an essential way, they are not of identical essence and cannot be the same being. It can't be 3, because that would make them identical in every respect, which is modalism. Classical Theists can't say 2, because non-essential properties are accidents and God cannot have accidents; and for everyone else, differing only in non-essential ways sure makes it seem like the distinctions are wholly abstract. Arians and Unitarians have no problem answering 1 and saying "the Trinity" is just a collective referring term for God, God's Son, and God's Spirit, who are at least two distinct entities (possibly three depending on whether the personhood of the Spirit is defended; many Unitarians just see it as God's power in action and not a real being). They differ in the essential sense that the Father is God and the Son is, uh... the Son. You know, because God made him.

[@KEvronista]

@@Uryvichk *"the sole distinction between the persons"* I don't see the relevance of ant distinction; they still form a set, and all sets are abstractions. KEvron

[@Uryvichk]

@@KEvronista They would argue it's not a set because they're the same object essentially, because the distinctions between persons are purely relational. I think this is nonsense and I'm sure you do as well, but that's the move the orthodox Trinitarian would be required to make.