The problem is that these entities possess independent identities (or persons) which manifest in the form of separate wills. (i.e. Luke 22:42 "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.")
If all three minds are free agents with the ability to manifest separate wills according to their own personal dispositions, in what way are they truly contingent upon this "ultimate mind"?.....And if indeed they exist as separate, independent entities possessing separate wills, can we truly say that three independent entities are in fact one entity without committing an error in logic? Without demonstrating a more concrete contingency between the sub minds in relation to the "ultimate mind", I'm disinclined to agree that these separate entities are indeed three congruous expressions of one singular mind.
Christ possesses two separate and distinct wills you say? One earthly and one divine? If so, I find it striking that the human will was able to triumph over the will of the divine so thoroughly and manifest itself to such an extent that Christ fails to drawn any distinction whatsoever between these two supposed wills. Moreover, he goes further to distinguish his own will as separate from that of the father's (a separate entity)...again, making no reference to a divine will inside himself, which somehow remains both the father's, the spirit's and his own simultaneously. Instead he states a resolve to deny his own personal will in order to adhere to a will which is, yet again, by his own admission, not his own.. His words were not "Not my human will but OUR divine will be done." but "Not MY will (singular, possessive) but YOUR will (again, in reference to a will apart from his own) be done." The references to separate yet co-existing wills demonstrates, rather conclusively, that no one shared will existed between the father and the son. Siting doctrines may indeed seem a convenient way to avoid this discrepancy in your argument, but the context of the passage offers testimony against your position and seems to speak unambiguously of the fact that Christ possessed but one will...his own. This coupled with other sections of scripture where Christ draws distinctions between his will and the father's, such as:
Christ's supposed human will overpowers his divine will to the point that he is moved to issue a request contrary the divine will of the father (which Christ supposedly also shares). In the moment the request is issued, the divine will is suppressed in order to make provision for the human will to convey its desire. I find that interesting.
Then perhaps the passage ought to have read "Not my human will but my divine will be done"? The fact that Christ references the father's (divine) will as a will separate and distinct from his own does not speak well for your argument.
God split himself into three entities so he can keep himself company? Sounds like some cosmic equivalent of multiple personality disorder.
This is not the same at all. The Trinity is presented as three physically/mentally separate entities, not simply three aspects of the same person. Jesus is alleged to have walked the earth as a man who prayed to God as a being apart from himself. I certainly would not describe myself like this (unless I had a multiple personality disorder).
Didn't the 'nature of man' know he was also 'the son' and would as such be praying to himself?
Three persons who exist apart from one another in three separate forms are three separate entities by definition....
1. A thing with distinct and independent existence.
The fact remains that we are still referring to three separate and distinct HUMAN BEINGS Tom. Three entities. To state that all three are ONE human being would be an error in logic.
In other words, we have three entities, separate and distinct by virtue of their personal, independent, and idiosyncratic will.. A will, which in turn prompts, independent and varied actions performed of each entity's own volition.
Are you saying that divinity does not consist of certain attributes or qualities which define it? How then is it distinguishable? Consider the essence of humanity. Its properties are what render it distinguishable from other essences. The capacity for language, artistic creativity, great feats of ingenuity, bi-pedal motion...all of these, and more, combine to form the essence which defines humanity. In the same way, omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience, are at least key properties of the essence which defines divinity
Two separate wills, one intent. 2 Gods, one essence. Not 2 persons, one God.
Curious....What exactly did Christ "empty himself" of? Surely not his divinity...right? That would make your claim that Christ was fully divine and fully man a bit absurd.
This is emblematic of the two minds dilemma...Logic dictates that two separate and distinct minds ( one possessing knowledge the other does not) cannot exist as one person (person hood being a product of mind).
Do the logical fallacies never cease? Tom, 3 separate consciousnesses ( or minds) cannot be one mind, lest they cease to be 3 separate minds. 3 minds can be privy to the same knowledge, and possess equal power, and even possess omnipresence (so long as they are immaterial in nature) without actually becoming one mind. If your intention is to say that these minds are "one" in the sense that they are equal in knowledge, power, and presence then yes, they are "one"...but strictly in a poetic sense. If you assert that these 3 minds are truly 1 mind in a literal sense then logic will not support your conclusion.
Divinity is a property common to all three, but it is not a shared property. Annie, Betty and Charlie all have blue eyes, a common property — if it were a shared property, they'd have one pair of blue eyes between the three of them.
That is EXACTLY the point I'm making Thomas and the context of my rebuttal, along with the analogy I presented, clearly demonstrate it. I submitted that you refer to one SHARED common essence or property. If you must nit pick, then for your satisfaction I will defer to the precise terminology you fancy. Make no mistake however, the intent behind my use of the word "shared" aligned perfectly with what you've posted above.
Wrong. The father, son and spirit share a common intent, yet their wills remain distinctly their own by virtue of their individuality. Thus they are three separate individuals who separately will with common intent. They are not one, literal God possessing one singular will. Like it or not Thomas, we are in accord.
Then you assert that God can lack these attributes while remaining divine? If so, how could such a being be the creator of all things? How can a being exist infinite in its totality if not for the presence of these attributes? A total and absolute infinite nature demands these qualities Thomas.
Two wills represent two separate and distinct minds (which as you stated in your previous post, posses differing degrees of knowledge), they therefore cannot logically exist as one complete person. 2 cannot be one. To suggest that two minds, possessing differing degrees of knowledge, can exist as one person (personality being a product of mind) is a flagrant violation the law of non-contradiction. Or are you suggesting that Jesus suffered from multiple personality disorder? Even this defies logic given that one suffering from multiple personality disorder cannot exist FULLY as two personalities simultaneously.
Three wills (minds), one intent....One God?! Where on earth do you derive that notion. 3 separate and distinct persons, each possessing a separate and distinct mind, cannot exits as one being (God). They are three not one. You can't just throw "one God" in there and expect that I'll over look the brazen logical fallacy you require in order to argue for your preferred doctrinal interpretation of the trinity.
Inhabiting a body does not make two minds one person, for personality is a product of the mind..as is the will. Thus both 2 minds and 2 wills cannot exist as one person in any literal sense. Regardless of whether you stuff them into one body. The separate knowledge and will reflected by one mind will produce a personality separate and distinct from the personality produced by the other. The two can never be one, according to logic.
Wow Tom...you're digging deep here. What is a mind? The capacity to know. Thus a mind is prior to knowledge. What is a will? It is intent instructed by knowledge. Can I will to do something I don't know about Thomas? Could Christ "will" to go to the Cross if he didn't KNOW what salvation was....or what a cross was for that matter? You're being silly, its quite obvious that minds will what they know. Thus, a will is predicated upon knowledge, which, in turn, is predicated upon a mind. If a mind does not know, it cannot will. Are you sure it is I who lacks understanding here?
Good, then omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience are necessary qualities God must possess in order to exist as a infinite being with the capacity to be powerful, to be present, and to know. These characteristics define the biblical God's infinitude...without them, God is not the biblical God as you have defined him.
God cannot be totally absolute if he lacks even one of these qualities. Consider omnipotence, if God lacks omnipotence, then God is not infinitely powerful...therefore God is not absolutely infinite to the fullest degree. The absence of one, effects the whole of what God is said to be. It is the presence of ALL the elements which comprise God's infinite nature, which make him absolutely whole.
why would the creator of the universe utilize violence, apply it on himself to cool down ? cool down because all humans in his eyes from unborn to babies to adults = "your deeds are like menstrual blood"
if sabath was created for man and sacrifice was also created for man, how does it apply to a god who can't LOSE anythi ng? the whole point of sacrificing your billions of dollars and then living in a card board box is LOSING your billions of dollars and living in a card board box not for 7 minuites but for your entire life.