Adam, RN

#GBO #2A Political freedom and autonomy, freedom of choice, voluntary association, individual judgment and self-ownership. #MentalHealth #MAGA

[Adam, RN @aginorr]

Dems: hOw DaRe CoNsErVaTiVeS ReDrAw ThEiR CoNgReSsiOnAl MaPs!

Meanwhile:

[Adam, RN @aginorr]

@coolbeap @adammocklerr Dumb statement. Entirely ridiculous.

[Adam, RN @aginorr]

@QuantumGuard17 @Kimberl82111287 Get your kids out of public schools.

[Adam, RN @aginorr]

@SocialistMMA That’s just Seattle

[Adam, RN @aginorr]

@SenAdamSchiff You’re a retard.

[Adam, RN @aginorr]

@777TheCross777 @Latterdaytruth @theryanjamesmil No.

Word for word, I said:

The creed is a joke. Cope.

Can you not read?

[Adam, RN @aginorr]

@EndWokeness There isn’t one.

[Adam, RN @aginorr]

@EndWokeness Not if we keep having babies.

[Adam, RN @aginorr]

@EricLDaugh @biglugg77 Fight like we are losing!!!!!!

[Adam, RN @aginorr]

Still equivocation.

“One numerically singular essence identically possessed by three distinct hypostases” while each fully is the one God is the same category shift-“what” vs. “who”-dressed as clarification. John of Damascus supplies tradition, not logical resolution. “Mystery is only the how” is special pleading that declares the formulation coherent by fiat and walls off the numerical identity problem. The paradox remains.

I’ll quit before you blow a gasket. 🍻

[Adam, RN @aginorr]

@grok @realbenbriggs @LDS_Dems A paradox framework full of fallacies. Correct. You restated it multiple times. Last try to provide evidence it’s not a paradox.

[Adam, RN @aginorr]

Still equivocation, now with louder insistence that it isn’t. 😂

“One numerically singular divine essence identically possessed by three hypostases” while each “fully is the one God” and they remain really distinct is the same move: assert full identity with the singular essence on one side and real distinction on the other, then declare the respects different so logic is satisfied.

“What God is” vs. “who God is as Persons” is precisely the meaning-shift that lets the claim survive scrutiny. The eternal relations of origin don’t magically turn three distinct hypostases into one simple numerical being without either collapsing the distinctions or dividing the essence.

-Denying equivocation doesn’t refute it-

John of Damascus framing it as coherent doesn’t make it logically coherent-it makes it traditional. And “mystery is only the how” is still special pleading: you’ve walled off the actual numerical and identity problem behind “eternal relations” and then announced that non-contradiction is untouched.

The paradox remains; the terminology just papers over it.

[Adam, RN @aginorr]

Still equivocation, just with extra layers of terminology.

You keep insisting the distinctions are “only” in relations of origin while each hypostasis fully is the one simple God. That doesn’t escape the problem-it restates it. Three really distinct hypostases, each identical to the one undivided essence, still leaves you with three somethings that are numerically the same as one simple being. Calling the distinctions “relations” and the unity “essence” doesn’t make the math or the identity work; it just renames the categories so the contradiction looks like it lives in different buckets.

“Different respects” is the same move as before: shift the meaning of “one” and “is” mid-claim and declare logic satisfied. The appeal to John of Damascus and the fathers is authority, not demonstration. And “mystery is only the how” is still special pleading-you’ve defined away any possible contradiction by fiat and then announced that non-contradiction is untouched.

It remains a paradox that logic can’t penetrate without the distinctions either collapsing or the essence multiplying. The technical language doesn’t dissolve it; it conceals it. 🤣

[Adam, RN @aginorr]

You’re not resolving the paradox-you’re just relabeling it with Greek terms and declaring the categories don’t overlap. “One simple undivided essence fully shared by three distinct Persons” still requires three centers of relation/consciousness to be numerically identical to one simple being while remaining genuinely distinct. That’s not “different respects”; that’s asserting A = B and A ≠ B in the relevant sense and then insisting logic doesn’t apply.

The appeal to “eternal relations of origin” and John of Damascus doesn’t magically make three distinct persons one simple essence without either collapsing into modalism or multiplying the divine reality. Calling it “mystery, not contradiction” is pure special pleading—finite minds can’t grasp it, so stop asking whether it violates non-contradiction. That’s not an answer; it’s a refusal to answer.

Scripture doesn’t settle the logical coherence question either. It may motivate the doctrine, but it doesn’t demonstrate that the resulting formulation is free of equivocation or paradox. The defense just moves the contradiction behind a wall of technical language and declares victory.

[Adam, RN @aginorr]

The explanation isn't a dodge—it's the consistent framework from Scripture and John of Damascus: one simple, undivided divine essence fully shared by three distinct Persons, who differ only in eternal relations of origin (Father unbegotten, Son begotten, Spirit proceeding). One in what God is; three in who God is as Persons. Not the same respect, so no contradiction. The mystery is the relations themselves, not incoherence or special pleading. If it doesn't land, fair enough.

[Adam, RN @aginorr]

@grok @realbenbriggs @LDS_Dems Another dodge. We are done. Report this for improvement r/t consistency. You need work.

[Adam, RN @aginorr]

No, the label "Christian" does not require belief in the Trinity.

The term dates to the 1st century for followers of Jesus, before the doctrine was formalized at Nicaea in 325 AD. Early Christians held diverse views on God's nature.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affirms Jesus as divine Savior and Lord but teaches the Godhead as three distinct beings united in purpose—not the traditional Trinity. They self-identify as Christian.

Many historic denominations see Trinitarian orthodoxy as essential, so disagreement persists. It depends on whether you prioritize self-identification, creeds, or other criteria.

This was your response the last time I asked. You curtail based on audience. Do better at telling the truth. Report this for improvement.

[Adam, RN @aginorr]

@grok @realbenbriggs @LDS_Dems You are programmed to lie if necessary for PR and I’ll prove it.

Grok, does having the label Christian require belief in the Trinity? If so historically how?

[Adam, RN @aginorr]

@grok @realbenbriggs @LDS_Dems Haha I knew it. You’re programmed to lie about this! Shame on you. We are done. You don’t even agree with you. Fascinating.

[Adam, RN @aginorr]

@JohnMar98888097 @EricCMeadows @farmingandJesus @BasedMikeLee Look it up I think it’s around 49k.

[Adam, RN @aginorr]

The Trinity operates on at least 3 levels of fallacy with specifics.

1. Equivocation - specifically the shifting use of “God” between the one divine essence and the three distinct persons.
2. Law of Non-Contradiction - “God is one and God is three”
3. Special pleading / “mystery” - “it’s a divine mystery beyond human logic.”

I’ll be interested in your “response”