tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346686027691118156.post841620050967038444..comments2023-03-03T00:33:44.999-08:00Comments on SEMPER PARATUS: Say Not Three Gods: A Reply to Sami Zaatari And His Counterfeit TrinityAnthony Rogershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04311194078700307794noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346686027691118156.post-21371475728934501712009-03-10T17:12:00.000-07:002009-03-10T17:12:00.000-07:00PM,Thank you for your excellent contribution. I kn...PM,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your excellent contribution. I know when you came you already had a full plate, so I thank you for taking some time out from all of that. <BR/><BR/>May the Lord bless you and your family for all you do for his kingdom.Anthony Rogershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04311194078700307794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346686027691118156.post-34271818661782609672009-03-10T16:44:00.000-07:002009-03-10T16:44:00.000-07:00Ibn,"I did demonstrate your wrongness. Obviously y...Ibn,<BR/><BR/><I>"I did demonstrate your wrongness. Obviously you are too embarrassed to admit this. I just hope you don't digress as my other opponent, Paratus, did and continues to do."</I><BR/><BR/>Okay, so at this point further fruitful dialogue has ceased. You will repeat that you have defeated my claim, I will deny that you have. So, the reader can judge for himself, then.<BR/><BR/><I>"So? Your "defense" still leaves wide open the inference that God is an aggregate. "</I><BR/><BR/>You say without demonstrating.<BR/><BR/><I>"I granted you that the persons were numerically distinct from each other. I did, however, demonstrate how regarding the persons' unity in terms of essence reduces God to an aggregate, much like a team. You didn't address that."</I><BR/><BR/>That's nothing to <I>grant</I>, Ibn. You're either playing dumb or you are dumb. That's the position. It's not as if you're "granting" it. Try and keep up.<BR/><BR/>Again, if you demonstrated it lay out the formal argument because I do not see where you have. You have merely <I>asserted</I> that we have an aggregate-which makes no sense of you "grant" numerical identiy between the persons and the essence. This "granting" implies that you grant that there is only "one" entity. Are you too dumb to see this?<BR/><BR/><I>"Again with the straw man. I didn't say each person of the Trinity possessed essences different from the other. I said to regard them as God by virtue of their common essence (which ironically is what social trinitarians say)"</I><BR/><BR/>Well, that's not what social trinitarians say, unless you equivocate. When I use the "is" I am using the "is" of numerical identity, they use the "is" of generic identity. So, you equivocate and continue to show all that you're s sophomore in this debate.<BR/><BR/><I>"Also, as Daniel Howard Synder writes [SNIP]</I><BR/><BR/>I already pointed out I wasn't defending social trinitarianism.<BR/><BR/>So, you've tactitly admitted that you can't defeat my position and that you need to go to those who don't hold the traditional position to make your argument.<BR/><BR/>In agree that social trinitarianism has a problem with monotheism; but then, I'm not a social trinitarian. That's what Snyder was arguing against you goof. That's why he says, "acedemic trinitarians cannot mean whatever they like when they insist that they are monotheists."<BR/><BR/>So, that you quoted from Howard-Snyder, as paratus notes, indicts you as a dishonest debater. That, or you simply haven't grasped <I>my</I> position but are reading me as affirming what Social Trinitarians like Swinburne, Moreland, Craig, and Clark have affirmed.<BR/><BR/>So, as Brian Leftow notes, "One basic problem for ST is showing that it is a form of monotheism...So, if my arguments are sound, it is not clear that ST can be orthodox or truly monotheist" (Leftow, Anti Social Trinitarianism, 249).<BR/><BR/>Now, I admitted almost from the start that I was not ST and that ST was the minority and questionably unorthodox position...definitely not the historic position (see Kelly, Early Doctrine, 234). I offered the numerical idenity position, which does not fall prey to your objections founded upon an undersdtanding of the trinity that is <I>generic</I> identity (i.e., they all share the property of being divine). But you're too dense to grasp this.<BR/><BR/>So, as I said, I gave you some shots, you obviously are unable to even grasp the argument, but you seem determined to assert that you answered my objections and that I haven't made my case. Anyone with a high school understanding of the issues involved can see that you're a chisler and are either too dumb or too dishonest for this dedbate to continiue on.<BR/><BR/>So, you can have the last word, I think I'm done here.<BR/><BR/>Hope that helped!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346686027691118156.post-43390404808215407512009-03-10T13:56:00.000-07:002009-03-10T13:56:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anthony Rogershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04311194078700307794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346686027691118156.post-19485063112363013492009-03-10T12:28:00.000-07:002009-03-10T12:28:00.000-07:00PM,Though you might already be familiar with it, t...PM,<BR/><BR/>Though you might already be familiar with it, the source of Ibn's citation can be found online here: <BR/><BR/>http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~howardd/trinitymonotheismpc.pdf<BR/><BR/>Perhaps the reason for not citing the article is to hide the fact that Snyder's article is an attack on Social Trinitarianism, espeially that of Moreland and Craig. <BR/><BR/>Ibn,<BR/><BR/>Keep trying.Anthony Rogershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04311194078700307794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346686027691118156.post-48467515973603673362009-03-10T12:05:00.000-07:002009-03-10T12:05:00.000-07:00Talk about embarassment...I defended my view; you ...Talk about embarassment...I defended my view; you have run from any attempt to defend your view. <BR/><BR/>Like I said, I am happy with that if you are.Anthony Rogershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04311194078700307794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346686027691118156.post-29595830492888925222009-03-10T12:00:00.000-07:002009-03-10T12:00:00.000-07:00PM:You appeal to sophistry in accusing me of sophi...PM:You appeal to sophistry in accusing me of sophistry. No attempt to demonstrate that I'm wrong<BR/><BR/>I did demonstrate your wrongness. Obviously you are too embarrassed to admit this. I just hope you don't digress as my other opponent, Paratus, did and continues to do.<BR/><BR/>PM:You said,<BR/>"Since the universal and particular are different entities"<BR/>but this is to beg the question. If the "is" is that of numerical identity, then they cannot be different entities.<BR/><BR/>So? Your "defense" still leaves wide open the inference that God is an aggregate. <BR/><BR/>PM:You then say that each person is not identical to the other. Yes, that's the trinity. They are numerically identical to the godhead, numerically distinct from eachother.<BR/><BR/>I granted you that the persons were numerically distinct from each other. I did, however, demonstrate how regarding the persons' unity in terms of essence reduces God to an aggregate, much like a team. You didn't address that. Instead, you remarked:"So, what's your argument from here?" This is just a tacit to create an impression that your opponent has not been able to defend his position, duping the lay readers to side in your favor. <BR/><BR/>PM:You just assert that it is a collective being, but we've already seen that it is not since we have a numerically identical essence between thee three, which means ONE essence"/.<BR/><BR/>Again with the straw man. I didn't say each person of the Trinity possessed essences different from the other. I said to regard them as God by virtue of their common essence (which ironically is what social trinitarians say) is no different from a collection of red objects-all of which share the essence of being red. Also, as Daniel Howard Synder writes, "...the Difference Claim entails that the Father is not absolutely identical with the Son. Second, the Sameness Claim, understood as implying the Property Identity Claim, entails both that the Father has the property of being divine and that the Son has the property of being divine. But, third, necessarily, for any x and y, if x is not absolutely identical with y<BR/>but x has the property of being divine and y has the property of being divine, then x is a God and y is a God and x is not the same God as y. It follows that the Father is a God and the Son is a God, and the Father is not the same God as the Son. Fourthly, necessarily, for any x and y, if x is a God and y is a God and x is not the same God as y, then there are two Gods. Thus, if we read the Sameness Claim as implying the Property Identity Claim, then, given the Difference Claim, it is false that there exists exactly one God—which contradicts Monotheism."<BR/><BR/>In conclusion, the Trinity still compromises monotheism.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07459995709666677792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346686027691118156.post-28753630545335954972009-03-10T11:37:00.000-07:002009-03-10T11:37:00.000-07:00Ibn said,"to quo quoes"Ummm, did you mean "tu quoq...Ibn said,<BR/><BR/>"to quo quoes"<BR/><BR/>Ummm, did you mean "tu quoque?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346686027691118156.post-18540149062846052552009-03-10T11:32:00.000-07:002009-03-10T11:32:00.000-07:00Ibn said:"It is just as I suspected. The same argu...Ibn said:<BR/><BR/><I>"It is just as I suspected. The same argument presented differently using sophistry."</I><BR/><BR/>There's a certain irony here. You appeal to sophistry in accusing me of sophistry. No attempt to <I>demonstrate</I> that I'm wrong, just your re-assertion of your misguided understanding of Christian dogma. Just because Ibn says so, that makes it so. Are you a Muslim or a Papist?<BR/><BR/><I>"If the three persons are one in essence, but each person is not identical to the other which would have reduced the Trinity to a single person, and each person is a unity per se, then you still have three unities crammed into one unity-the essence-to form a collective being called God. "</I><BR/><BR/>Apparently you can't keep track of your initial argument. You said,<BR/><BR/>"Since the universal and particular are different entities"<BR/><BR/>but this is to beg the question. If the "is" is that of numerical identity, then they cannot be different entities.<BR/><BR/>You then say that each person is not identical to the other. Yes, that's the trinity. They are numerically identical to the godhead, numerically distinct from eachother.<BR/><BR/>So, what's your argument from here? You just <I>assert</I> that it is a collective being, but we've already seen that it is not since we have <I>a numerically identical essence between thee three, which means ONE essence"</I>/.<BR/><BR/>So, what's your argument now? You need to <I>show</I> the problem rather than asserting trinitarian theology - one essence three persons - and then <I>annoucning</I> that that's problematic. Isn't that what you're supposed to be <I>proving</I>?<BR/><BR/>Perhaps your argument is, "But I just don't get it." Well, I'll alert the media, you don't "get" God.<BR/><BR/><I>"So as can be seen, it is not I who is guilty of not reading, but you. I already covered your argument several posts back. You thought you could deceive the lay readers using sophistry, but at the end of the day, truth always prevails over falsehood."</I><BR/><BR/>Don't you look stupid.<BR/><BR/>You've made no such <I>argument</I> and you've addressed mo such argument. What you've done is to assert that we have three essences, which is to ignore the numerical identity qualification. Yoiu then respond to that qualificatiob by saying, "but then if the persons were distinct from each other, they'd be distinct essences." So, the only way to counter the numerical identity point is to deny numerical identity. That is, you have to misrepresent the trinity to defeat the trinity. Wow, I'll alert the media. If the trinity is misrepresented it can be shown to be false. How utterly enlightening.<BR/><BR/>So, why don't you do what I said and lay out the formal argument so we can all clearly see your argument rather than getting emotional and pounding on your keyboard, anouncing that you have dealt with challeneges when you clearly haven't. You're tactily admitting defeat by continuing to announce that you're right. It's like...who are you trying to convince. One might say, "you dost protest too much."<BR/><BR/>Hope that helped!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346686027691118156.post-25881687771035126682009-03-10T09:54:00.000-07:002009-03-10T09:54:00.000-07:00Ibn said: "You can't defend the Trinity, so you re...Ibn said: "You can't defend the Trinity, so you resort to fallacies such as red herrings, to quo quoes and arguments from ignorance. Thus, you have no rational defense for your position." <BR/><BR/>I have defended the Trinity. I did it in the article, and I have done it here. <BR/><BR/>The first charge, that of Zaatari, was that it amounts to tritheism, which has been altogether aborted. The new charge, your charge, is that it makes God an abstract rather than a concrete universal. That has been dealt with as well, for the essence, attributes, and persons of the Godhead are all coeterminuous. You have yet to prove otherwise. <BR/><BR/>You might be impervious to reason, but many people will see that it is perfectly legitimate to go on to critique your position, especially when this is a two sided debate, when you can't argue without assuming your view, and when the very argument you are raising saws off the branch you are sitting on. <BR/><BR/>You can "rant" about why you think otherwise, but something doesn't become a "red-herring", a "tu quoque", or any other fallacy simply because a Muslim wants to force his conclusion on others instead of proving them. But isn't that the default method of Islam?<BR/><BR/>Also, there is no burden on me to prove that my view is not guilty of something which has been concluded from premises I don't hold. The fact that you argued that God is an abstract universal only applies to you, since the premises are part of your theology, not mine.Anthony Rogershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04311194078700307794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346686027691118156.post-91339541242393414352009-03-10T09:26:00.000-07:002009-03-10T09:26:00.000-07:00Paratus:Someone who keeps going, not knowing when ...Paratus:Someone who keeps going, not knowing when to quit, even when it has been demonstrated that he has: 1) no cogent argument against the position he is attacking; and 2) no rational defense for his own position.<BR/><BR/>You must be talking about yourself. Consider the second qualification first (2) no rational defense for his own position. <BR/><BR/>You can't defend the Trinity, so you resort to fallacies such as red herrings, to quo quoes and arguments from ignorance. Thus, you have no rational defense for your position. <BR/><BR/>As for the first characteristic, you haven't given any arguments as to why your version of the Trinity does not reduce God to a universal. True, you have made several assertions, but none of these were logical in the sense that they contained premises and conclusions. They were merely bare claims.<BR/><BR/>You are seriously deluded if you think you can attack Islam with your infantile arguments.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07459995709666677792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346686027691118156.post-47212393551769647112009-03-10T09:13:00.000-07:002009-03-10T09:13:00.000-07:00To rant is: to talk foolishly, to rave.A good exam...To rant is: to talk foolishly, to rave.<BR/><BR/>A good example would be: <BR/><BR/>Someone who keeps going, not knowing when to quit, even when it has been demonstrated that he has: 1) no cogent argument against the position he is attacking; and 2) no rational defense for his own position.Anthony Rogershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04311194078700307794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346686027691118156.post-32696836775567166462009-03-10T09:01:00.000-07:002009-03-10T09:01:00.000-07:00Are you done ranting?Are you done ranting?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07459995709666677792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346686027691118156.post-86806863390907276462009-03-10T07:42:00.000-07:002009-03-10T07:42:00.000-07:00Ibn, Throughout this discussion:1. You have repeat...Ibn, <BR/><BR/>Throughout this discussion:<BR/><BR/>1. You have repeatedly misread me, as I pointed out each time you did it.<BR/><BR/>2. You have applied a double standard, expecting one thing from me only to complain when your expectation was met. <BR/><BR/>3. You have shown great desperation in attaching logical fallacies to me, betraying in the process an ignorance of what actually counts as an instance of such fallacies. <BR/><BR/>And, most relevant to your last post:<BR/><BR/>4. You have engaged in reasoning that is fallaciously circular and arbitary, assuming your own position as a key premise of your argument in order to attack the Christian view. <BR/><BR/>Since you have assumed your view in order to critique mine, and since you have been repeatedly (and successfully) rebuffed each step of the way, I think it is entirely appropriate to look at your view.<BR/><BR/>But if you are fine with simply saying, "your view is wacky", even though you haven't proven this to be anything more than your own subjective judgment, and if you are fine in saying that your view, against which an argument has been given, an argument that has gone unrefuted and unchallenged, is not wacky, then I am perfectly fine with that. I would just say that we usually reserve the word "wacky" for indefensible positions that are held for subjective rather than objective reasons. If you use the word differently than that, then I will happily leave you with your indefensible abstraction and your novel use of English words.Anthony Rogershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04311194078700307794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346686027691118156.post-49719193253389678922009-03-10T00:10:00.000-07:002009-03-10T00:10:00.000-07:00Paratus:On your view Allah is One, not two, not th...Paratus:On your view Allah is One, not two, not three, nor anything beyond a simple unity. And since you have said that unity precedes diversity, and the universal precedes the particular, then you have to grant that when Muhammadans speak of the "beautiful names" and many "attributes" of Allah, that these do not attach to anything like the nature or essence of Allah, i.e. they are not definitional of Allah, the One, and therefore Allah is a blank, or, if you will, an abstraction.<BR/><BR/>Again with the red herring. It seems that the only way you can defend your wacky theology is by attacking mine. This is what I call an argument from ignorance!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07459995709666677792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346686027691118156.post-60873817462128076862009-03-09T11:21:00.000-07:002009-03-09T11:21:00.000-07:00Ibn, I will let PM continue to school you on the T...Ibn, <BR/><BR/>I will let PM continue to school you on the Trinity, I just thought I would be a nice guy and quickly point out how close to home your argument hits, even though you have vocifersouly objected to my doing so. <BR/><BR/>On your view Allah is One, not two, not three, nor anything beyond a simple unity. And since you have said that unity precedes diversity, and the universal precedes the particular, then you have to grant that when Muhammadans speak of the "beautiful names" and many "attributes" of Allah, that these do not attach to anything like the nature or essence of Allah, i.e. they are not definitional of Allah, the One, and therefore Allah is a blank, or, if you will, an abstraction. <BR/><BR/>Welcome to the world of consistency, my friend.Anthony Rogershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04311194078700307794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346686027691118156.post-64761114814425555532009-03-09T08:01:00.000-07:002009-03-09T08:01:00.000-07:00PM:This means there's only one essence, not three....PM:This means there's only one essence, not three.<BR/><BR/>It is just as I suspected. The same argument presented differently using sophistry.<BR/><BR/>If the three persons are one in essence, but each person is not identical to the other which would have reduced the Trinity to a single person, and each person is a unity per se, then you still have three unities crammed into one unity-the essence-to form a collective being called God. <BR/><BR/>So as can be seen, it is not I who is guilty of not reading, but you. I already covered your argument several posts back. You thought you could deceive the lay readers using sophistry, but at the end of the day, truth always prevails over falsehood.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07459995709666677792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346686027691118156.post-20696528618934271672009-03-08T14:43:00.000-07:002009-03-08T14:43:00.000-07:00Edit: "All the persons have a numerically identica...Edit: "All the persons have a numerically identical essence"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346686027691118156.post-17717019297119998412009-03-08T12:05:00.000-07:002009-03-08T12:05:00.000-07:00Ibn said... AM:Numerical idenity between x and y i...Ibn said... <BR/><BR/>AM:Numerical idenity between x and y implies that x and y are "one and the same entity."<BR/><BR/>So you believe Jesus is IDENTICAL to his father?<BR/><BR/>Saturday, March 07, 2009<BR/><BR/>Ibn, above you mentioned people who "don't read." So, how about applying that rule to yourself? I said that the <I>persons</I> were numerically identical to the <I>godhead</I>. That doesn't imply that the persons are numerically identical to eachother. <BR/><BR/>Historic Christian theology is that the persons are numerically identical to the godhead, numerically distinct from eachother. All the persons have numerically identical essences, yet they are not numerically identical to eachother. This means there's only one essence, not three.<BR/><BR/>Hope that helped.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346686027691118156.post-70980569844260958322009-03-07T22:06:00.000-08:002009-03-07T22:06:00.000-08:00Ibn,I see you have made a new friend while I was a...Ibn,<BR/><BR/>I see you have made a new friend while I was away. He's doing a bang up job, wouldnt you say?Anthony Rogershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04311194078700307794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346686027691118156.post-55854354798020559242009-03-07T20:38:00.000-08:002009-03-07T20:38:00.000-08:00AM:Numerical idenity between x and y implies that ...AM:Numerical idenity between x and y implies that x and y are "one and the same entity."<BR/><BR/>So you believe Jesus is IDENTICAL to his father?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07459995709666677792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346686027691118156.post-7869825120160439652009-03-07T15:23:00.000-08:002009-03-07T15:23:00.000-08:00edit: "a thinG is identical to itself" (not "think...edit: "a thin<B>G</B> is identical to itself" (not "think")Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346686027691118156.post-19591969187076682492009-03-07T15:22:00.000-08:002009-03-07T15:22:00.000-08:00Ibn,You write: "Sure. "No matter how you look at i...Ibn,<BR/><BR/>You write: <I>"Sure. "No matter how you look at it, to argue (as you did earlier)the persons of the Trinity are one by virtue of a common property-Divinity, is no different from contending that you and I are one by virtue of being human. In other words, you have reduced God to a collective term."</I><BR/><BR/>Ummmm, apparently you are confused as to what counts as laying out a <I>logical implication</I>.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, what you expressing above is what is known (roughly) as social trinitarianism, this is a minority position and doesn't enjoy the best historical creedal support either.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, STs could get around your objections but I'll leave you to debate them as I am not an ST and that is, as I said, a minority view.<BR/><BR/>You write: <I>"What do you mean by numerically identical to the Godhead? That they are one in Godhead? That they share the common property of being divine by virtue of which they are one in essence? If so, then you too are implying that God is an abstraction."</I><BR/><BR/>Ummmm, no. For someone as cock-sure as you seem to be, you have a terribly inadaquate knowledge of even the <I>basic</I> language needed to engage in this debate in any fruitful way. I'd call you sophomoric but I wouldn't want to offend sophomores.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, numerical identity is different that qualitative identity--what you imply is the trinitarian position above. Numerical idenity between x and y implies that x and y are "one and the same entity." For example, a think is "numerically identical" to itself, not just qualitatively.<BR/><BR/>Hope that helped!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346686027691118156.post-21100895670341283382009-03-07T10:29:00.000-08:002009-03-07T10:29:00.000-08:00Am:Anyway, if you can direct me to where you forma...Am:Anyway, if you can direct me to where you formally laid out the implication, then I'll be happy to read it.<BR/><BR/>Sure. "No matter how you look at it, to argue (as you did earlier)the persons of the Trinity are one by virtue of a common property-Divinity, is no different from contending that you and I are one by virtue of being human. In other words, you have reduced God to a collective term."<BR/><BR/>Here, I am using collective term and universal interchangeably as there is basically no difference between the two. The same holds for abstraction.<BR/><BR/>PM:Of course I deny [1] (as it begs the question in favor of polytheism, in historic Christian theology the persons are numerically identical to the godhead, thus there can't be "different entities"), I deny [2] as well, and I deny [3].<BR/><BR/>What do you mean by numerically identical to the Godhead? That they are one in Godhead? That they share the common property of being divine by virtue of which they are one in essence? If so, then you too are implying that God is an abstraction.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07459995709666677792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346686027691118156.post-66093212745896903282009-03-07T09:24:00.000-08:002009-03-07T09:24:00.000-08:00The above was me, sorryThe above was me, sorryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7346686027691118156.post-38139135204380587042009-03-07T09:23:00.000-08:002009-03-07T09:23:00.000-08:00I take this to be the best Ibn could muster:"[1] S...I take this to be the best Ibn could muster:<BR/><BR/>"[1] Since the universal and particular are different entities, and [2] the universal metaphysically precedes the particular, [3] God exists independently of and differently in comparison to the three persons of the Trinity."<BR/><BR/>(Numbering mine).<BR/><BR/>Of course I deny [1] (as it begs the question in favor of polytheism, in historic Christian theology the persons are <I>numerically identical</I> to the godhead, thus there can't be "different entities"), I deny [2] as well, and I deny [3].<BR/><BR/>So, there's been no <I>argument</I> that uses premises that <I>the Christian</I> accepts and then <I>draws out</I> the <I>logical implication</I> you say is there. Hence, I asked you if you could lay out the argument since nothing in this combox, even that weak, sorry excuse for an argument I quoted, can <I>plausibly</I> be taken as demonstrating your case in any <I>cogent</I> way.<BR/><BR/>So, try again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com