MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)

[DeistPaladin]

You know what I love?

One minute, the bible is the inerrant word of God.

But when I point out that God says he created good and evil, suddently there are "translation errors".

Or this is when they play the game of "When the Bible says... it really means..."

Ridiculously obtuse interpretations follow to make the Bible say what they want it to say.

---

One God...three individuals.

Which is it?

If your answer is "both", explain how that's possible. Good luck.

It would only be polytheistic if the Trinity represented three different Gods..but since they are the same God, that make it monotheistic.

But they are three different gods. You just said they are three individuals. Earlier, you said "three separate persons". Since they are separate, this makes them three gods.

Polytheism.

Who said they are the same being?? See, that is a misrepresentation of the Trinity...

I can't misrepresent what's never explained.

You keep saying "one god". So one being then, since a god is a being.

The Father: Creator, Four Omni's, Supernatural, Eternal
The Son: Creator, Four Omni's, Supernatural, Eternal
The Holy Spirit: Creator, Four Omni's, Supernatural, Eternal

I'm going to assume "four omni's" is your way of shorthand for "omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent" but please correct me if I'm wrong. Needless to say this opens up a can of worms if you just assert such things about one being, never mind three. I'm going to paraphrase what the ancient Greeks nailed long ago:

• Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
  
• Is God able to prevent evil but not willing? Then he is not omnibenevolent.
  
• Is God willing and able to prevent evil but just not aware of where and when evil is happening? Then he is neither omnisient nor omnipresent.
  
• If God is willing and able to prevent evil and aware of when and where evil is happening, whence commeth evil?
  

Additionally, any one of these omni words completely fails philosophically. This YouTube poster described why in great detail so I'll save myself some typing and invite you to let him educate you:

Every single attribute of one, the other two also has...they are of the same essence...the same nature...the same Deity.

We've seen in my quotations in the Bible that Jesus has a subordinate will to his father (not omnipotent), lacks knowledge his father has (not omniscient), travels from one place to another (not omnipresent) and admits his morality is inferior to his father's (not omnibenevolent).

Also, simply sharing traits does not make them the "same deity". The gods of other mythologies share traits of great power, immortality and strange need to be worshiped. This does not make them any less polytheistic.

These gods also assumed earthly avatars. Isis, Odin and the Greek gods were known in stories to assume an earthly avatar and walk among the mortals. This does not make their avatar a separate person because the avatar isn't a person at all, just a human suit that the god controls and roams around in.

In another work of fiction: the character Jake Sully remains Jake Sully whether he's in his human form or walking about inside of his Navi avatar.

You believe in a paradox. If you seriously want to defend all parts of it, you're going to have to do better than this. Good luck.

Rank and roles doesn't have anything to do with nature...

But they do underscore how these three gods of yours are separate persons. You can't be a separate person and be the same god. Or you need to do a better job of explaining how it is possible.

They don't have separate will's. The human side of Jesus did not want to go through what was about to come, which is like if I see a busty woman walking down the street, the flesh side of me want to go after her, but the spiritual side of me wants to fight the good fight against sexual temptation.

There is no "flesh side" of you. You feel an impulse because of hormones and how they interact with your brain. The hormones are not people. They're not conscious beings. You're injecting a lot of needless woo on matters that science has better explained.

So the father and son do have separate wills, and one submits to the other. Ergo, they are not the same god.

He wasn't talking to himself, he was talking to the Father, who is the first person of the Trinity.

So they are separate beings and therefore separate gods. OR they're the same god and he's talking to himself. Make up your mind.

...just to spew the same crap you've been spewing?

...says the man who believes in one god in three separate persons.