Sean 🦇

garry in his office in his lobster outfit "okay claude... rewrite this but in rust... no wait... rewrite it like paul graham would" "garry you have a yc interview starting in 5 minutes" "one second. claude just one-shotted a distributed system" "garry they are in the zoom" "can they describe their startup to claude instead" "garry you are the interviewer" "hold on. claude says their idea has a better moat if we pivot them" "they haven't even pitched yet" "claude already knows" "garry this is yc" "...what's yc again"

We spent 4 years building a payments network for the new internet. Entrepreneurs now earn $3.3B annually on Whop. Millions of people are clipping, labeling data, deploying agents, and starting businesses to get paid. Today we're opening Whop Payments Network to everyone.

1) that's denying the ontological trinity. Jesus said that he and the "Father" are one, not that he and "God" are one. that's Nestorianism (heresy). 2) I can't say if that is or is not a "historical" account. that gospel was written and circulated anonymously in the late first century. 3) the "The Father and I are one." statement has to be interpreted the same way that we interpret the same verbiage in John 17.21 "that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us". if you're claiming that John 10.30 is a statement of ontological consubstantiality, then that means that the disciples are also part of the trinity and that they are also consubstantial, co-equal, and co-eternal with Jesus and the Father. that wouldn't be a "trinity", that would have to be a quindecternity or quindecimternity. 4) that pericope is also an explicit rejection of the post-reformation 17th-century concept of monotheism and the ontological trinity, since Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6, a direct reference to the divine council in the Hebrew Bible.

1) that's denying the ontological trinity. Jesus said that he and the "Father" are one, not that he and "God" are one. that's Nestorianism (heresy). 2) I can't say if that is or is not a "historical" account. that gospel was written and circulated anonymously in the late first century. 3) the "The Father and I are one." statement has to be interpreted the same way that we interpret the same verbiage in John 17.21 "that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us". if you're claiming that John 10.30 is a statement of ontological consubstantiality, then that means that the disciples are also part of the trinity and that they are also consubstantial, co-equal, and co-eternal with Jesus and the Father. that wouldn't be a "trinity", that would have to be a quindecternity or quindecimternity. 4) that pericope is also an explicit rejection of the post-reformation 17th-century concept of monotheism and the ontological trinity, since Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6, a direct reference to the divine council in the Hebrew Bible.

1) that's denying the ontological trinity. Jesus said that he and the "Father" are one, not that he and "God" are one. that's Nestorianism (heresy). 2) I can't say if that is or is not a "historical" account. that gospel was written and circulated anonymously in the late first century. 3) the "The Father and I are one." statement has to be interpreted the same way that we interpret the same verbiage in John 17.21 "that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us". if you're claiming that John 10.30 is a statement of ontological consubstantiality, then that means that the disciples are also part of the trinity and that they are also consubstantial, co-equal, and co-eternal with Jesus and the Father. that wouldn't be a "trinity", that would have to be a quindecternity or quindecimternity. 4) that pericope is also an explicit rejection of the post-reformation 17th-century concept of monotheism and the ontological trinity, since Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6, a direct reference to the divine council in the Hebrew Bible.

1) that's denying the ontological trinity. Jesus said that he and the "Father" are one, not that he and "God" are one. that's Nestorianism (heresy). 2) I can't say if that is or is not a "historical" account. that gospel was written and circulated anonymously in the late first century. 3) the "The Father and I are one." statement has to be interpreted the same way that we interpret the same verbiage in John 17.21 "that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us". if you're claiming that John 10.30 is a statement of ontological consubstantiality, then that means that the disciples are also part of the trinity and that they are also consubstantial, co-equal, and co-eternal with Jesus and the Father. that wouldn't be a "trinity", that would have to be a quindecternity or quindecimternity. 4) that pericope is also an explicit rejection of the post-reformation 17th-century concept of monotheism and the ontological trinity, since Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6, a direct reference to the divine council in the Hebrew Bible.