Well, that’s one way to avoid dealing with what Phil 2 states about the Son emptying himself, and avoid dealing with the rest of my points. Two birds with one stone.
It's not avoidance. I'm just being rational. You said of the Trinity in post 251.
Free---"What it's always been: three divine, coeternal, coequal, consubstantial persons within the one Being that is God. It's worded specifically to avoid three persons in one person or three Gods in one God, as those are contradictions."
To which I replied.
"I've not presented a straw man. I've presented the Trinity as you yourself have. Here is your quote.
Free---"What it's always been: three divine, coeternal, coequal, consubstantial persons within the one Being that is God. It's worded specifically to avoid three persons in one person or three Gods in one God, as those are contradictions."
Three persons in one being. The words person and being are synonymous. They are interchangeable. So, saying three persons in one person is synonymous with what you said. It is illogical to claim that three persons can exist as one being or person. It's not a straw man, it's an illogical doctrine."
To say, three persons exist as one being, or person, is illogical and irrational.
Then I pointed out that in Philippians 2 Paul states that Jesus was in the form of God and emptied Himself. To which you relied.
"No, that is not what Paul says. You need to read closer at what Paul actually writes:
7 but
emptied himself
by taking on the form of a slave,
by looking like other men,
and by sharing in human nature.
The emptying was
not the emptying of "the form of God," but was by
adding "the form of a slave," "looking like other men," and "sharing in human nature." It's an emptying by addition, since God
cannot cease to be God, even when he comes in human flesh."
You completely ignored what it is that He emptied Himself of and then gave me a ridiculous statement saying, "It's an emptying by addition." In what world is emptying something adding to it?
Then you finished the sentence with a logical fallacy. "since God
cannot cease to be God, even when he comes in human flesh." What is at question is whether Jesus is the true God. You've assumed Jesus is God, in the Trinitarian sense, to argue that Jesus is God, in the Trinitarian sense. That is begging the question or circular reasoning.
I also pointed out that Paul said, "there is one God, the Father." You argued that if the "one God" statement excludes Jesus, then the "one Lord" statement must exclude the Father. I responded with, both of Paul's statements. Here they are.
4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. 5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 6
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him
The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), 1 Co 8:4–6.
The same Paul who made the above statement also made this statement.
13 I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession; 14 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: 15 Which in his times he shall shew,
who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; 16 Who only hath immortality, adwelling in the light which no man can approach unto;
whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be dhonour and power everlasting. Amen.
The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), 1 Ti 6:13–16.
So, Paul sees the Father as Lord of lords and at the same time he said, "we have one Lord Jesus Christ." So, either Paul contradicted himself, he's wrong, or he understands things a little differently than you do. So, your argument is with Paul, not me. He shows in these two statements that saying, "one Lord Jesus Christ" does not necessarily exclude the Father as Lord. You simply dismissed this argument.
So, no, It's not avoidance. I'd love to discuss the issue if it's done in a logical and rational way. But there's no point in addressing nonsensical claims.
