@ChrisTrade4 @Randomlyscript @9ushaman @deusimpera So no, it’s not “creaturely counting.” It’s recognizing that if your doctrine denies logic just to stay intact, it’s not transcendent, it’s incoherent.

@Fitrah46782412 @Randomlyscript @9ushaman @deusimpera Your logic failed awhile ago as pointed out you flatten words persons and personhoods evident of biological counting You've not applied logic. There is only 2 ways to count metaphysics essence or consciousness. I've asked you to pls show me seperate consciousnesses.

@ChrisTrade4 @Fitrah46782412 @9ushaman @deusimpera So to understand there is one central will and conscience that is controlling the three persons and telling them what to do?

@Randomlyscript @Fitrah46782412 @9ushaman @deusimpera You're far from understanding. God is not finite psychology my guy. There's no internal command structure Consciousness is relational expression, not information transfer.

@ChrisTrade4 @Randomlyscript @9ushaman @deusimpera That sounds clever, but it collapses under its own weight. If consciousness is just “relational expression,” then every distinction you claim between father, son, and spirit disappears, relations can’t exist without distinct relaters.

@ChrisTrade4 @Randomlyscript @9ushaman @deusimpera When Jesus prays to the Father or speaks of being sent, that’s not “God expressing relationship with Himself”. It’s one conscious subject addressing another. Prayer and will require awareness from both ends, otherwise it’s circular self‑talk. See how ridiculous it sounds?!

@ChrisTrade4 @Randomlyscript @9ushaman @deusimpera And saying there’s “no internal command structure” only dodges the observable hierarchy in Scripture: the Son obeys, the Father sends, the Spirit proceeds. Those aren’t metaphors for self‑relation, they’re markers of distinct personal agency.

@ChrisTrade4 @Randomlyscript @9ushaman @deusimpera If consciousness doesn’t involve genuine distinction or information flow, what’s left isn’t “relational,” it’s just one mind pretending to have many voices, which is, again, modalism in disguise.

@Fitrah46782412 @Randomlyscript @9ushaman @deusimpera In God: knowledge is immediate, awareness is total, presence is internal. So relationality occurs by mutual self presence, not message passing. Why do you keep treating God as though he is biological?

@ChrisTrade4 @Randomlyscript @9ushaman @deusimpera What point of mine are you arguing? Btw when Jesus was a human in a biological body, was he still God at that time? Im asking because it seems like you are saying that form of Jesus is not God since he is in biological form

@Fitrah46782412 @Randomlyscript @9ushaman @deusimpera (Btw when Jesus was a human in a biological body, was he still God at that time?) Can God cease to be God? How does God conducting an action make him not God?

@ChrisTrade4 @Randomlyscript @9ushaman @deusimpera Because you are seem to telling me God =/= biological Jesus was biological Therefore Jesus is not God Therefore trinity is false

@Fitrah46782412 @Randomlyscript @9ushaman @deusimpera You jump straight to conclusions without explain the HOW. HOW does God cease to be God in incarnate form when God can not cease to be God? Where did that and how did the process happen? If God has sovereign free will HOW is God limited internally and external?

@ChrisTrade4 @Randomlyscript @9ushaman @deusimpera Why are you confused. Is God biological or not?

@Fitrah46782412 @Randomlyscript @9ushaman @deusimpera That's not the question, the question is if God takes incarnet form HOW does God cease to be God. Is God limited to take a biological form?

@ChrisTrade4 @Randomlyscript @9ushaman @deusimpera Because you implied God cannot be biological and Jesus was biological. Biological form is a limitation btw, so your question is paradoxical. What am I missing here?

@Fitrah46782412 @Randomlyscript @9ushaman @deusimpera So now you reframe my position & not answering my question. You're collapsing what God is with how God acts I also haven’t denied divine action, incarnation, or relational expression. What I’ve denied is your assumption that these require multiple consciousnesses

@ChrisTrade4 @Randomlyscript @9ushaman @deusimpera So do you consider God as a biological creature or no?

@Fitrah46782412 @Randomlyscript @9ushaman @deusimpera How does your question solve God metaphysical can not assume a biological nature?

@ChrisTrade4 @Randomlyscript @9ushaman @deusimpera You arent tracking. Im simply going based on what you said. Let me grant your premise If consciousness doesnt involve genuine distinction or information flow, what’s left isn’t “relational,” it’s just one mind pretending to have many voices, which is, again, modalism in disguise

@Fitrah46782412 @Randomlyscript @9ushaman @deusimpera I don't fall for false dilemmas then you redefine “distinction” using independent consciousness and information flow, which are properties of finite temporal minds biology, instead of answering my metaphysics questions.... Answer my questions.

@ChrisTrade4 @Randomlyscript @9ushaman @deusimpera What parameters for God are you using to determine what is weak and is not weak for God. I dont even know what you mean by that? For example can God be all powerful to create a rock he cant lift?

@Fitrah46782412 @Randomlyscript @9ushaman @deusimpera You tell me.... I'm simply asking basic thesis questions.

@ChrisTrade4 @Randomlyscript @9ushaman @deusimpera Because you were assuming God is not biological. Therefore anything biological is NOT God. I dont know where your confusion is.

@Fitrah46782412 @Randomlyscript @9ushaman @deusimpera Ok so let's apply your logic. God is not time therefore God cannot act in time.

@ChrisTrade4 @Randomlyscript @9ushaman @deusimpera Thats not even a coherent example. Time is not a person like having a biological body is a person

@Fitrah46782412 @Randomlyscript @9ushaman @deusimpera Because your response was incoherent. Not biological by nature does not logically entail incapable of assuming biological nature. Answer my questions

@ChrisTrade4 @Randomlyscript @9ushaman @deusimpera x.com/i/status/20188… Then why did you have a problem here?

@Fitrah46782412 @Randomlyscript @9ushaman @deusimpera You're not "tracking" God is not biological he is metaphysical = What God is Track here however God can ASSUME a biological form = What God can do Last time answer my questions and stop dodging.

@ChrisTrade4 @Randomlyscript @9ushaman @deusimpera All you are saying is God can take a form of creation. This proves the very point I initially made. You God has different modes/forms

@Fitrah46782412 @Randomlyscript @9ushaman @deusimpera So your point is God taking action.....thats revelationary. Since you're not answering my questions then I believe we are done, as you don't have an argument, only statements.

I tracked the conversation and your position switched between modalism and partitioning Both are heresies I have a question If Jesus was God; why did Peter call him the servant of God? And why did he always directed his worship to the Father; whom he called the only true God?

@Randomlyscript @Fitrah46782412 @9ushaman @deusimpera John contradiction himself then? John 1:1 The Word was God. John 1:18 the only-begotten God John 8:58 Before Abraham was, I AM. John 20:28 Thomas calls Jesus My Lord and my God. You assume functional distinction = ontological inequality.

@ChrisTrade4 @Fitrah46782412 @9ushaman @deusimpera Maybe you will understand if you know who wrote John Whom do you think wrote the gospel of John?

@Randomlyscript @Fitrah46782412 @9ushaman @deusimpera Or maybe cherry picking isn't going to help your cause? Given what Peter stated is not out of line from Paul statement and the rest of John statements. So how about you focus on that? Out the mouth of 2 or more witness is the standard.

@ChrisTrade4 @Fitrah46782412 @9ushaman @deusimpera We can stay with Peter if you don’t want to tell me that John is an anonymously written gospel by a community that has nothing to do with Apostle John Now; for Peter; whom was Jesus a servant of? While he was God?

@Randomlyscript @Fitrah46782412 @9ushaman @deusimpera Or you can acknowledge your argument is rediculious given you need to prove verbatim that oral teachings from the apostles is invalid and papyrus was cheap and actually common use like the pen and paper today. Or how about with zero evidence we must just believe Muhammad