Sinners cannot understand the Bible!

[Ryft]

From my understanding, Jesus and God are the same entity essence, from your use of the word "ousia." And that it has two natures consists of three persons [two of whom are the Father and Son], from your use of the word "hypostases." So I ask you again, "Are God and Jesus the same being, or are they not?"

1. Given the propositions in question, the contrast is Jesus and the Father, not Jesus and God. Part of the problem is your prevarication on this point.

2. In the Greek text, ousia means essence. Jesus and the Father ARE the same with respect to 'essence' (i.e., there is only one God).

3. In the Greek text, hypostasis means person. Jesus and the Father ARE NOT the same with respect to 'person' (i.e., God is three persons).

Experience with non-Christians—whether atheist or Muslim or what have you—has amply demonstrated that confusion almost universally arises from thinking of God as a person, that the 'essence' of deity is encapsulated in a singular 'person'. Since this is decidedly not what Christianity affirms, using it in criticisms of Christian theology is invalid by reason of fallacy (by attacking a God different from that which Christianity affirms). It is patently irrational to criticize a view which Christianity doesn't affirm and then pretend you've produced an intelligible objection against Christianity. It is akin to a wingnut creationist attacking the notion that man evolved from monkeys and then pretending he has produced an intelligible objection against evolution. Beware the company your arguments are keeping.

---

Considering that we do not believe that God exists, it is foolish to argue with the presupposition that he does.

"It is the mark of an educated mind," Aristotle said, "to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." And he is quite right: one does not need to affirm a proposition in order to evaluate it. The fact that you reject a proposition does not in itself say anything about the proposition. As I said to Retorth, the issue was whether or not those two propositions contradicted each another, which your disbelief in God doesn't establish. Isn't that self-evident?

---

Persona, "The narrator of, or a character in, a literary work ..."

It is telling that you skipped past the first definition to quote one that suits your purposes, somewhat like how Dotard facetiously skipped past the 'Theology' category to cite from the 'Medicine/Medical' category. But then it is even more telling that you referenced persona, a Latin word that does not correspond to the Greek hypostasis. Yet it is also telling that you ignore the Greek text entirely, as if the New Testament (from which the propositions are derived) was not translated from Greek text. And so on.

This is rationality?