(June 17, 2011 at 10:05 am)FaithNoMore Wrote: Ah, but those are merely three different labels for the same entity, you. ... Your analogy falls short, but I understand the point you are trying to make.
The analogy certainly does break down, yes; specifically, applying it to the Trinity leads to modalism, the heresy of Sabellius. I was simply pointing out that it is not "rubbish" at all, not even close, to think a grandfather, father, and son could all be one person; that is, the objection fell flat on its face, requiring a restatement that is rational this time.
FaithNoMore Wrote:The trinity is comprised of three separate entities, because when you go to heaven Jesus and God are separate, right?
Incorrect. The Son is a distinct person; so is the Father, and so is the Spirit. They are three persons. But none is a god distinct from the others; the deity of one is identical to the deity of the others, so that they are not three gods (polytheism denied) but eternally and equally one and the same God, singular (monotheism affirmed). The problem arises from people thinking of God as a person, and thus they rightly point out the incoherence of three persons being one person. But God is not a person; rather God is a nature and category of being, shared equally by three distinct persons eternally (never ceasing, diminishing, becoming, etc.). In other words, in heaven Jesus and God are not separate. Jesus is God; so is the Father, and so is the Spirit.
FaithNoMore Wrote:I would argue, though, that since Jesus is worshiped as a separate entity, regardless if he is of the same essence as god, is polytheism.
You may argue that if you like, of course. However, polytheism (Gk. 'polus' + 'theos') is defined as many gods, not many entities. Changing the definition of a word to suit an argument is not exactly a rational course.
(June 17, 2011 at 10:13 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: But Jesus is a god, as is Yahweh. Saying they are the same God yet somehow separate beings is just a nonsensical evasion.
Jesus is not a god. He is God, Yahweh. Period. He is not separate from himself. (That would be nonsensical.)
DeistPaladin Wrote:The problem with citing scripture to justify this creed ... is that scripture is actually not so clear on the issue. Read the synoptic gospels and nothing else in the NT and you would come to the conclusion that not only is Jesus not God but is clearly subordinate to God.
Yes, I suppose the Bible would be rather unclear on this (and practically all teachings) if you segregated a part from the whole. Those who need to do that in order to make their point can knock themselves out. It is pretty revealing.
DeistPaladin Wrote:... aside from your apparent circular reasoning that the creeds confirm the creeds ...
Except I never did that. Again, quite revealing.
(June 17, 2011 at 10:15 am)Stue Denim Wrote: Arguing that he was displeased with them and so refused to help ... and sent an angel to say as much isn't a solid argument. The wording in Judges 1 was that they could not, because the enemy had iron charriots. It says nothing about refusal to help ...
Yes, it does: "I will not drive them out before you." Because of their disobedience and lack of faith, he ceased being with them. Thus their enemies were left to remain in the plains as punishment. Chapter four marks a turnaround in their obedience and faith, and this time they were given success against their enemies—iron chariots and all. You need to read beyond single passages. The details of this story are recounted in Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Judges.
Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
