Query II-the Response

This is the response to my rebuttal of the unanswerable query to a Christian.  Notice that he broke down my rebuttal the same way that I normally break down other peoples messages in order to isolate the main points.  His words in red.

Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Sure. But before we do so, lets talk logic. Do you know the definition of a "loaded question"?

I sure do! And I am happy to talk logic! I feel we sure could use some here. So let's get started:

Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
...every answer which you can possibly conceive will justify or confirm your presupposition.

My question is only "loaded" problematically IF I am making an incorrect assumption. Such as in your example:

Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
"have you stopped beating your wife?"
The question can only be shown to be "loaded" and therefore invalid if the underlying assumption--that the person you are asking is indeed beating his wife--can be shown to be untrue.

Therefore my question back to you is: What is the underlying assumption in my question that you can demonstrate not to be true?

RE: definition of death:
Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
your spirit separates from your body and you are dead because your body is no longer animated by your spirit.

I have no problem with your definition, let's go ahead and use it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
your spirit continues to live in the after life

Fine...

Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
So, what happened to Jesus on the Cross? Jesus died because His body was no longer animated by His Spirit. Yet His Spirit continued to live ...

You are still providing Answer B: No sacrifice. God sent a man He created to go get himself killed. No negative effects reached God Himself. So what real sacrifice was there? No true sacrifice = no atoning death possible.


If mine is a 'loaded question' you still have to show me what my incorrect underlying assumption is.

That was the response he gave.  Here's part of my second rebuttal:

Quote:
I sure do! And I am happy to talk logic! I feel we sure could use some here. So let's get started:

Ok.

Quote:
My question is only "loaded" problematically IF I am making an incorrect assumption. Such as in your example:

Ok.

Quote:
the question can only be shown to be "loaded" and therefore invalid if the underlying assumption--that the person you are asking is indeed beating his wife--can be shown to be untrue.

Not exactly. Whether the person is beating his wife is beside the point. The question is loaded because there is no way for the individual to answer the question without implicating himself, whether he is guilty or not.

Loaded question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
Therefore my question back to you is: What is the underlying assumption in my question that you can demonstrate not to be true?

As I explained before. You presupposed only three answers to your question. And you then gave those three answers your own interpretations leading to your false underlying assumption that Jesus is not God and that God is not a Trinity.

So, lets dissect your three answers:

Quote:
Answer A) is:
If you say "God the father resurrected him" then you prove that Jesus was NOT God in full because a separate God entity did the resurrecting. This violates the 'trinity.'

Not at all. The Trinity is defined as three Persons in one God. The three Persons share the
One Divine nature.

There is only one Divine Nature. Otherwise there would be three "eternal" Gods and that is impossible by definition. There is only one Eternal God, therefore the three Persons of the Trinity share the one and only God nature.

In other words, each Divine Person is God.

If you say "God the father resurrected him" then you prove that Jesus was NOT God in full because a separate God entity did the resurrecting. 

Not at all. A nature, such as a human nature is shared by many. You and I are both human and share a human nature. But the Divine nature is eternal. Therefore there is only one because there is only One God.

But a person is a character with separate characteristics which are not shared by other persons. As it pertains to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, their personhood is relational. The Father is in the Son, but the Father is not the Son. The Son is in the Father but the Son is not the Father. The Holy Spirit is in the Father and the Son but the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son.

Therefore it is perfectly logical to say that the "Father resurrected Him" since the Father is a separate person but fully God.

God the father resurrected him

Again, what do you mean by God the Father resurrected Him? If you mean that God the Father resurrected God, then you don't understand the meaning of death. As I have shown, death in a man is death of the physical body. Even in you and I, when we die, my Church and even Jewish teaching says that our spirit will live.

Therefore when the human body of Jesus Christ was no longer animated by His Spirit, Jesus Christ is said to have died. But Jesus' Divine nature continued to sustain the world. God rules supreme over death.

I'll continue with dissecting your presupposed answers in separate messages as this one is getting quite long.

 For the next rebuttal go here.

Sincerely,

De Maria