The unhistoricity & illogicality of Loftus

On the one hand, there is the historical evidence concerning the resurrection of Jesus from the grave, along with the other beliefs the resurrection commits many Christians to, i.e., a Trinitarian God, and the Incarnation. On the other hand, it seems logically incoherent that one God eternally created two others Gods, and it seems logically incoherent that one person can be 100% God and 100% man, as I previously argued.

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/03/paul-manata-resurrection-history-and.html

Several things go awry here:

1.To say the Resurrection commits one to the Trinity or Incarnation is very loose reasoning.

Although these are interrelated at certain levels, it’s not as if proving one depends on proving another. There are direct lines of evidence for all three doctrines.

2.Furthermore, the Resurrection hardly commits one to Swinburne’s version of Nicene subordinationism.

Indeed, Reformed theologians like Calvin, Warfield, Frame, and Helm reject Nicene subordination in favor of the autotheos of each Trinitarian person.

For someone who prides himself on his grasp of Reformed theology, Loftus ought to know better.

3.Yes, Loftus likes to *say* the Incarnation is incoherent, but he doesn’t do a very presentable job of *showing* it to be so. I’ve criticized his so-called argument on more than one occasion.

And the way Loftus responded was the way he usually responds to criticism, which is to keep repeating his original claim after it was shot down the first time around.

Loftus’ racehorse broke a leg on the last lap. He keeps trying to drag the fallen, crippled equine over the finish line. But heave, huff, and puff as much as he will, the dead weight of his steed is much too much for poor old Loftus.