tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post3001131466064290906..comments2024-03-29T05:55:32.588-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Christmas every dayEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger218125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6934757473769810222019-01-20T12:11:57.496-08:002019-01-20T12:11:57.496-08:00a reply:
https://theskepticzone.blogspot.com/2017/...a reply:<br />https://theskepticzone.blogspot.com/2017/12/theistic-arguments-essentially-ordered.html?showComment=1548012245142#c3646254409757341444Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74546821060118599432019-01-20T11:21:28.339-08:002019-01-20T11:21:28.339-08:00(cont)
@im-skeptical
>Read your Feser: https:...(cont) <br /><br />@im-skeptical<br />>Read your Feser: https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2016/06/four-causes-and-five-ways.html <br /><br />This page doesn't address anything pertaining to what I said above, and your tone could use some work... I encourage anyone reading this to read the dialogue that I was referring to at this link: http://www.quantum-thomist.co.uk/my-cgi/blog.cgi?first=45&last=45. In this thread, Dr. Nigel Cundy and Scott Lynch unpack im-skeptical's misconceptions about final causality.<br /><br />I also encourage you, as Scott Lynch did, to read Feser's Teleology: A Shopper's Guide. http://www.epsociety.org/userfiles/art-Feser%20(Teleology)(1).pdf<br /><br />You really didn't say much of anything you hadn't already said in your comment, other than making a few snarky remarks. As per usual, this seems in character for the person whose blog has the evidently unbiased tagline, "Speaking out against bullshit."GermyCleanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15029988627926756546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-55249634723873771792019-01-20T11:20:41.201-08:002019-01-20T11:20:41.201-08:00@im-skeptical,
Thank you for coming here to discu...@im-skeptical,<br /><br />Thank you for coming here to discuss your post. I've read some of your works before, and found them interesting. <br /><br />-The PSR is refuted by quantum mechanics. It is NOT an axiom of logic.<br /><br />For this, I would point to a few things: first, the fact that there are various philosophical interpretations of quantum mechanics... at least 18, according to Wikipedia. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics) Some of these interpretations would involve brute facts, others would not. Further, Heisenberg noted that act and potency were hinted at in quantum mechanics. As you said to me, read your Feser. http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/09/heisenberg-on-act-and-potency.html<br /><br />Moreover, the arguments for PSR, as provided by Feser and Alexander Pruss, are essentially unrelated to quantum mechanics but instead relate to epistemology and skepticism, among other things. Read your Feser (and Pruss!). http://alexanderpruss.com/papers/LCA.html, summarized here http://rocketphilosophy.blogspot.com/2013/12/alexander-pruss-on-principle-of.html<br /><br />>Both Martin and Feser have described essentially ordered series as being characterized by simultaneous causation, which is passed through intermediate elements. Physics has completely debunked this notion.<br /><br />Then you've completely misread Martin, who specifically said the following for you in your discussions on his blog:<br /><br />" As you can see above, the key point really has nothing to do with how concurrent a cause and an effect are." <br /><br />He *really* wanted to drive this point home for you, but I guess you're still sticking with your previous conception.<br /><br />Feser also notes in his book Scholastic Metaphysics that the truly important aspect of EOS is that every cause except the first is an instrument, not that all causes are simultaneous. (Yes, he does note simultaneity as a part of EOS, but he's discussing the metaphysical matter of instrumental causation rather than a physical matter in contrast to Newton, and he explicitly says the instrumental causation is the true key to EOS.) To quote Martin again, "In an essentially-ordered series, by contrast, the effect is just being “passed along.”"<br /><br />To hone in on your mention that "Physics has completely debunked this notion," I'll just quote Martin again, in a discussion he had on a different blog: "It is a mistake to confuse [essentially ordered series] with a physical argument in conflict with Newton." Further, "the argument is not a physical one. It isn't a quasi-scientific hypothesis. It's rather much more fundamental."<br /><br />>I refute the notion that there is any kind of causal "series."<br /><br />Yes, you made that very clear in your blog post.<br /><br />>- Read your Feser. He says that the only exception to simultaneity would be if there was some kind of "time portal" through which the chain of causation passes.<br /><br />Mind your tone. Once again, we're not dealing with a physical argument here, but a metaphysical one. The goal is to discern why objects subject to the laws of physics exist at all, and we can use certain metaphysical examples to come to some conclusions about it. That's all there is to it; the explanation cannot be the explanandum.<br /><br />(cont)GermyCleanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15029988627926756546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40765930934785354562019-01-20T09:49:37.519-08:002019-01-20T09:49:37.519-08:00if true, it would clearly violate PSR, which I thi...<i>if true, it would clearly violate PSR, which I think makes for an incoherent philosophy.</i><br />- The PSR is refuted by quantum mechanics. It is NOT an axiom of logic.<br /><br /><i>Neither of the two attacks he offers are at all novel, and both betray a pretty naive understanding of what a causal series is.</i><br />- Both Martin and Feser have described essentially ordered series as being characterized by simultaneous causation, which is passed through intermediate elements. Physics has completely debunked this notion.<br /><br /><i> "Im-skeptic" assumes that any effect in the causal chain of an essentially ordered series must be identified with a singular cause</i><br />- I refute the notion that there is any kind of causal "series".<br /><br /><i> "Im-skeptic" assumes an essentially ordered series requires that an effect be simultaneously concomitant and contemporaneous with its cause.</i><br />- Read your Feser. He says that the only exception to simultaneity would be if there was some kind of "time portal" through which the chain of causation passes.<br /><br /><i>im-skeptical seemed to repeatedly misconstrue Aquinas' fifth way and final causation.</i><br />- Read your Feser: https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2016/06/four-causes-and-five-ways.html <br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36554711187119375882019-01-15T07:08:22.643-08:002019-01-15T07:08:22.643-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.GermyCleanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15029988627926756546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-19544905627816341812019-01-14T01:33:04.517-08:002019-01-14T01:33:04.517-08:00Dr. Feser:
Beautifully put, it I might say so, al...Dr. Feser:<br /><br />Beautifully put, it I might say so, although even to compliment you would seem presumptuous on my part. It's above my competency to pass judgment on your writing. <br /><br />Re the thread, tl; dr but a couple of thoughts:<br /><br />I wonder in what sense both Apostolics (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and probably the Anglican-catholics) and Protestants are both Christians in a univocal sense. Clearly Apostolics and Protestants do not share the same creed, code or cult. Sure, we might share many beliefs in common with them, but we also share many common beliefs with Jews and Muslims. But we don't say that Apostolics and Jews or Apostolics and Muslims belong to the same «religion» (I'll not go into the fact that religion as an anthropological category is suspect, there doesn't seem to be any essence of religion which is instantiated across the so-called world religions). One might say that any ideology or movement having Jesus of Nazareth as its central figure is Christian, but if so, we would have to include not just neo-Arians (such as the JWs) and the Socinians, but also Gnostics of all stripes. In which case «Christianity» would cease to have a definition based on doctrine, but would have only a definition based on historical origins. Which is a high price to pay for most theological viewpoints claiming the name of Christianity. <br /><br />Therefore it seems that one would have to hold that the use of "Christian" as applied to both Apostolics and Protestants is equivocal, rather like using "hand" to refer to both the human limb and an appendage of a statue.<br /><br />Caveat lector: none of this is about whether or not Protestants will be redeemed; that is not given to me to know. <br /><br />Ultimately, these lines from the Small Paraklesis to the Most-Holy Theotokos apply:<br /><br />"Speechless be the lips of impious ones,<br />Those who do not reverence<br />Your great icon, the sacred one<br />Which is called Directress,<br />And was depicted for us<br />By one of the apostles,<br />Luke the Evangelist."<br /><br />Sri Naharhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17331851104846456479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-42504493865636577212019-01-05T12:51:07.837-08:002019-01-05T12:51:07.837-08:00Catholic Tradition Like Pharisaical Judaism:
For ...Catholic Tradition Like Pharisaical Judaism:<br /><br />For a Roman Catholic, tradition has more in common with Pharisaical Judaism than it does with Scripture. Rabbinic Judaism teaches that when Moses received the written law on Mt. Sinai, he also received a very lengthy unwritten tradition. They assert that Moses’ “oral revelation” was passed on to Joshua, the seventy elders, the prophets, and then to the great rabbinic teachers in each generation. Rabbinic Judaism has codified or committed to writing these traditions in the Talmud. The Jewish Talmud contains hundreds of blatant, explicit internal contradictions and clearly contradicts God’s Word in many places.<br /><br />Similarly, papal doctrine asserts that the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles reside with the bishops, papacy, official councils, decrees, and papal bulls. A papal bull is a type of letter issuing a decree or a formal pronouncement by a Pope. These traditions also contain many internal contradictions and also explicitly contradict Scripture, which we will discuss later in this book.<br /><br />“The entire Roman Catholic argument depends upon the assumption that Rome could not do what Israel did. The problem is that in reality she has done exactly what Israel did. She has placed herself in precisely the same position that the Scribes and Pharisees found themselves in. Their oral law or tradition was so “synthesized” to the written Torah, that judgment of the validity of that unwritten law by means of the written law became an impossibility. Neither could judge the other because both were assumed to have originated with Moses. In the same way Rome has developed an unwritten tradition that she has synthesized with the written New Testament to the degree that it cannot be judged by that New Testament. If Mark 7 teaches us anything, it is that the two must not be “synthesized.” The written Word of God must remain the unique norm.” (The Shape Of Sola Scriptura, Keith A. Mathison, Reformed Protestant, 2001, p 179)Gerald Haughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09617645082814995623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72266207838128884622019-01-05T12:50:22.366-08:002019-01-05T12:50:22.366-08:00Jewish Tradition Led the People Astray:
Historica...Jewish Tradition Led the People Astray:<br /><br />Historically, the leaders of Israel often led the people into apostasy by requiring them to obey the traditions of their elders or fathers. In the seventh century BC, the prophet Jeremiah wrote: <br /><br />"And the LORD said, “Because they have forsaken my law which I set before them, and have not obeyed my voice, neither walked therein; But have walked after the imagination of their own heart, and after Baalim, which their fathers taught them: Therefore, thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will feed them, even this people, with wormwood, and give them water of gall to drink.” (Jeremiah 9:13–15)."<br /><br />Notice how God says that it was their fathers who taught them to commit idolatry and forsake the Law. The Bible also records that one of the fathers of Israel, Jeroboam, the king of Israel, set up golden calves in the cities of Bethel and Dan so the people could worship there instead of worshipping God in Jerusalem. Gerald Haughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09617645082814995623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-61463409089956769502019-01-05T04:50:14.857-08:002019-01-05T04:50:14.857-08:00Ten of the thirteen references to tradition in the...Ten of the thirteen references to tradition in the New Testament refer to Jewish tradition, and each is used in a negative sense. <br />Two of these references are Galatians 1:14 and Colossians 2:8. In the first, Paul refers to his life before he became a Christian.<br /><br />"I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions (Galatians 1:14)."<br /><br />Here Paul is speaking of his experience as a member of the Pharisees (Philippians 3:5). The traditions to which he is referring are the Jewish regulations handed over by the rabbis that ruled his life. Through Christ, he found liberation from these wrong traditions.<br /><br />"See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ (Colossians 2:8)."<br /><br />In this verse, Paul is speaking of deceptive doctrines that false teachers were trying to hand over to the church in Colossae. From the context, we know that this “tradition of men” was a mixture of Jewish legalism and Greek philosophy. Paul warns the Colossians that the result of following the traditions of men is spiritual captivity.<br /><br />The Catholic Church has committed the same error that Paul warned the Colossian church about, namely mixing Greek philosophy and pagan practices with Christianity. <br /><br />Also the canon of Scripture was NOT defined by the RCC. Why? The earliest church councils rejected the Apocrypha.<br /><br />If one understands the book of Revelation and epistles of Peter properly, one sees that ALL the Apostolic writing was completed by 70 AD and the final canon was put in place by the apostles John and Peter.<br /><br />The problem is that you have been deceived by drinking the deception promulgated by Rome and Catholic apologists.<br /><br /><br />Gerald Haughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09617645082814995623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-61183634367611673802019-01-04T14:28:17.901-08:002019-01-04T14:28:17.901-08:00Would you be so kind and stop insulting my mother?...Would you be so kind and stop insulting my mother? I do not take that kindly.Randolph Cranehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16696593312319487318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16319735732598655892019-01-04T14:21:43.804-08:002019-01-04T14:21:43.804-08:00Hello Gerald,
Jesus did not take recourse to any ...Hello Gerald,<br /><br />Jesus did not take recourse to any ecclesiastical tradition/authority simply because of the fact that, despite Himself being God, He hadn't instituted the Church yet, at least not fully.<br />But I am baffled at how unaware you are that Sacred Scripture did not fell from Heaven, but was written by men (and maybe women?) in a way of tradition. Scripture itself is a product of Tradition. By quoting Scripture, Jesus quotes the Jewish tradition.<br />The New Testament as a whole is a product of ecclesial tradition. The best example would be the Gospel according to Lukas. He simply wrote down what Paulus told him. That is the literal meaning of tradition. That is also the reason why we Catholics don't differentiate between Scripture and Tradition, because they are both interchangeable. Tradition brought forth Holy Scripture, and Holy Scripture brought forth Tradition. Both cannot be thought independently from eachother, and yet they are not the same.Randolph Cranehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16696593312319487318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22918538627878929032019-01-04T12:51:03.431-08:002019-01-04T12:51:03.431-08:001. The doctrine of perspicuity: Even a child can u...1. The doctrine of perspicuity: Even a child can understand Scripture’s message.<br /><br />"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings . . . (2 Timothy 3:14–15a)."<br /><br />2. Parents can teach scripture to their children.<br /> <br />"And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise (Deuteronomy 6:6–7)."<br /><br />3. Perspicuity is not about intellectual ability (see 1 Corinthians 2:14).<br /><br />4. Scripture cannot be fully understood unless one is willing to welcome and apply it (see John 7:17).<br /><br />So if someone needs a Magisterium to explain Scripture to them, it is a heart issue and not a knowledge issue.Gerald Haughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09617645082814995623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43045070351442307822019-01-04T12:40:04.291-08:002019-01-04T12:40:04.291-08:00@Tom,
Proverbs says that “the fear of the Lord is ...@Tom,<br />Proverbs says that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction” (Proverbs 1:7).<br /><br />From a biblical perspective, a lack of understanding is the result of being foolish, rejecting wisdom, and not from a lack intelligence. Gerald Haughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09617645082814995623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74209925284873736862019-01-04T11:30:05.962-08:002019-01-04T11:30:05.962-08:00Unfortunately, most Westerners reject my council a...<i>Unfortunately, most Westerners <b>reject my council</b> and that is why I typically work with Asians because they have more sense about these things.</i><br /><br />"Do you see a person wise in their own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for them." (Proverbs 26:12)<br /><br />Atheists are merely fools...and they're better off than you are :DTomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18165807597654250982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10363122544367522572019-01-04T02:15:17.724-08:002019-01-04T02:15:17.724-08:00Gerald Haug, have you ever heard of a little ol...Gerald Haug, have you ever heard of a little ol' church called Westboro Baptist Church? They're the most protestantest of all protestant denominations. They're so protestant they do nothing but protest all day.<br /><br />I think you should join WBC. They would see a kindred soul in you and love you like one of their own brothers and sisters!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6185882414480523242019-01-04T01:22:37.140-08:002019-01-04T01:22:37.140-08:00You are the debt collector trying to collect the d...You are the debt collector trying to collect the debt of theological sins of Roman Catholics, and the Kingdom of Heaven is the IRS. And why should I love a god who's just a debt collector anyway? A debt collector god is unjust and deserves to die and be punished for his own sins.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-25088367360764401702019-01-03T15:32:25.475-08:002019-01-03T15:32:25.475-08:00Tritium, I was going to put forward a pretty simil...Tritium, I was going to put forward a pretty similar explanation about using Newton's First Law and so-called "constant linear motion", but you beat me to it. Thanks. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-49989597349666748752019-01-03T12:04:04.475-08:002019-01-03T12:04:04.475-08:00To all:
I've interacted with "im-skeptic...To all:<br /><br />I've interacted with "im-skeptical." He won't post here because he thinks the community is too mean. He allegedly had some bad experiences while posting here years ago. I told him that every site has its trolls, but most of this community is glad to interact with intelligent, respectful atheists who debate in good faith.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08001130202947985336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40071237897054914572019-01-03T06:37:19.544-08:002019-01-03T06:37:19.544-08:00@Tritium,
Maybe you did not get the Memo. I quote ...@Tritium,<br />Maybe you did not get the Memo. I quote directly from the Catholic Encyclopedia that PROVES that the earliest fathers did not accept Transubstantiation. Here is the quote:<br /><br />"Regarding tradition, the earliest witnesses, as Tertullian and Cyprian, could hardly have given any particular consideration to the genetic relation of the natural elements of bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Christ, or to the manner in which the former were converted into the latter; for even Augustine was deprived of a clear conception of Transubstantiation, so long as he was held in the bonds of Platonism. (“The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist,” Catholic Encyclopedia)"Gerald Haughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09617645082814995623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23023542823970772542019-01-03T03:54:17.324-08:002019-01-03T03:54:17.324-08:00Demonstrating sola scriptura from the Bible is not...Demonstrating sola scriptura from the Bible is not very difficult. Jesus used the Bible to counter the arguments of Satan, not tradition (Matthew 4:1–10; Luke 4:1–12). In debates with religious leaders, Jesus asked, “Did you never read in the Scriptures . . .?” (Matthew 21:42). Nowhere in Scripture did Jesus appeal to any ecclesiastical body, the priesthood, or tradition.<br /><br />The Sadducees, the priestly group that controlled the temple, denied the doctrine of the resurrection and hoped to trap Jesus with a question that seemed to have no rational or biblical answer. Jesus could have manufactured a legitimate and satisfactory answer without appealing to scripture, yet he did not. Instead, he told them, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, or the power of God” (Matthew 22:29). Jesus rejected ecclesiastical opinion — represented by the Sadducees — in favor of sola scriptura.<br /><br />When reasoning with the Jews, what standard did Paul use? According to “Paul’s custom . . . he reasoned with them from the Scriptures” (Acts 17:2). Paul, who claimed apostolic authority (Romans 1:1, 11:13; 1 Corinthians 9:1; Galatians 1:1), did not rebuke, but commended, the Berean Christians for examining “the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:11). Notice that the Bereans were like Paul in assessing doctrine through reasoning from Scripture.<br /><br />Could a Roman Catholic put the pope on the spot in that way? Could a Catholic challenge church doctrine with an appeal to the Scriptures? Probably not!Gerald Haughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09617645082814995623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43144939157563815762019-01-02T20:40:10.909-08:002019-01-02T20:40:10.909-08:00NO ONE IS LISTENING TO YOU. You have frittered aw...NO ONE IS LISTENING TO YOU. You have frittered away any quasi-credibility with your inability to respond to and/or defend rebuttals to your ludicrous positions -- but more due to your conduct and behavior on this blog combox. Tritiumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09898318643029403042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-55098937683025798282019-01-02T20:36:03.268-08:002019-01-02T20:36:03.268-08:00Hello grodriques,
Indeed, that is why I explained...Hello grodriques,<br /><br />Indeed, that is why I explained the more accurate (general) physical/mathematical models for the Laws of Motion, which would be SR and GR. However, the point is that Newtonian Mechanics is rightfully understood as a "Law of Nature", with the proviso that (like any physical theory) it is accurate within a domain of validity. For Newtonian Mechanics, that would be the cased in which for the energy-momentum relation, v << c. For classical (Newtonian) gravity, the domain of applicability would be where the local spacetime metric is Euclidean (flat) to the first approximation, as the limit case.<br /><br />In any event, GR (which incorporates SR) also has a domain of validity, which also breaks down at the extreme limit case, i.e. at very high energy densities and/or small scales.Tritiumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09898318643029403042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-9743246071926973892019-01-02T10:05:37.172-08:002019-01-02T10:05:37.172-08:00I think you'd enjoy the called to communion bl...I think you'd enjoy the called to communion blog with Brian Cross. They have excellent reformed/catholic dialogue that require attention to detail in argument and philosophical logic. The various Sola Scriptura articles are especially good. Rev Clum's approach to assert without proper logic wouldn't float boat there. The dialogues are required to be charitable, something Rev. Clum seems to lack.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-68596156709579695982019-01-02T08:44:42.124-08:002019-01-02T08:44:42.124-08:00It is true the Mithraism appear after Christianity...It is true the Mithraism appear after Christianity. It was a very popular religion among soldiers. As Newman says, Constantine dusted off pagan practices and "sanctified" them for Christian use. The false spirit of sacramentalism infected the Roman and Orthodox churches and one had to await for the damnable doctrine of Thomism to further infect Christendom and then give a metaphysical justification for Transubstantiation. <br /><br />FYI, the term Real Presence was first coined by Protestants. There is a whole book devoted to this discussion. Even Catholics are loath to use the term Transubstantiation, first coined in the 11th century. Real presence was coined by Protestants much later.Gerald Haughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09617645082814995623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64030816585924283672019-01-02T04:16:21.916-08:002019-01-02T04:16:21.916-08:00Torley, Here is one example why your concept of th...Torley, Here is one example why your concept of the Trinity is in error. Remember the Orthodox do NOT have a centralized teaching authority and as such your link reflects the teaching of one particular strain of the Orthodox. <br /><br />Once claim of the Orthodox is that Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Father have one mind. Let me show you using Scripture that this is NOT the case. <br />When discussing the Second Coming, Jesus says: "But about that day or hour [i.e.Second Coming] no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." (Matt 24:36). This verse alone shows that the Father knew certain things that the Son did not; ergo the Father and Son have different minds; ergo this one example refutes the doctrine of simplicity.Gerald Haughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09617645082814995623noreply@blogger.com