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

[His_Majesty]

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.


I can't misrepresent what's never explained.

Odin, Thor, and Loki are three separate God's..they don't share the same power, knowledge, benevolence, will, etc. If Odin has more power than Thor and Loki, then that would make Odin's mere essence different from the other two, and for the other two, likewise....so that would make them three separate god's. They are three separate individuals, and also three separate god's.

But the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share the same power, knowledge, benevolence, and will..all three are of the same essence...the one definition that defines one also defines the others...it is based on that ONE definition which applies to all three that makes them ONE God

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

"God" is a title that applies to all three beings.

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.

You are correct.

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.

If God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil, then he won't prevent it...non-sequitur .

[*]Is God able to prevent evil but not willing? Then he is not omnibenevolent.

Again, God may have morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil. Non sequitur.

[*]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?

Non sequitur based on the first two fallacious assertions.

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:

No, you tell me.

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).

I've already responded to that.

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.

Yeah, but all we need is for ONE deity to be powerful than either one of them, and that would separate one god from the other..we don't have that with the Biblical Trinity.

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.

If you seriously want to offer a defeater of the concept, you have to do better than this. The doctrine is what it is, you don't believe it, you don't accept....that is on you...but it is what it is. You can just continue to deny the doctrine just like you deny the religious altogether...it is a package-deal, ya know.

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.

Actually, you can...I can certainly conceive the notion of me and two other people sharing the same knowledge, power, benevolence, and presence. It really isn't that difficult to conceive, and no one has given me any reason why such a concept is logically unsound.

There is no "flesh side" of you.

I think it is, you think it isn't *shrugs*

You feel an impulse because of hormones and how they interact with your brain.

See, now we are REALLY getting off subject...even though we have already been off subject. I don't want to spoil any future spanking of you people regarding consciousness and morality, so I would rather wait until I make a thread for it.

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.

Did science explain the origins of consciousness yet? Ok ok, I won't go any further than that.