Dale Tuggy

Dale Tuggy is Professor of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Fredonia, where he teaches courses in analytic theology, philosophy of religion, religious studies, and the history of philosophy.

3 Comments

  1. Eric Glover
    April 20, 2014 @ 2:46 pm

    Thank you for the review. It was intelligent, thoughtful, well formulated and clear. However, debate tactic and form aside, as a trinitarian I remain unmoved and find Finnegan’s position to be abjectly uncompelling.

    The truth is stubborn in that it remains to be the truth regardless of someones good or bad presentation of it.

    Again, thank you for your analysis and have a great day!

  2. reality checker
    June 13, 2012 @ 4:11 am

    it was rather odd watching Bosserman commit a fruedian slip after lecturing about not introducing Fruedian ideas. while Bosserman claims he is a “chalcedonian christian”, at 1:28 38 he talks about Jesus humanity as beng “another person took on human flesh and lived a perfectly righteous life in Jesus”, I would surmise that by calling himself a Chalcedonian christian” he is claiming awareness with the issues involved surrounding chalcedons council, which attempted to walk the fine line between the heresy of eutychus belief that Jesus had only one blended nature after the incarnating and the Nestoriian party heresy that jesus’ 2 natures were personalized into being 2 persons .Bosserman unwittingly verbalizes his commitment to nestorian heresy. Nestorian belief, that of turning Jesus natures into two personalistic subjects, is rampant amongst trinitarian believers and this is well known by systematic theologians..a nature is a mental construct which is descriptive of the type of object it describes, the object it describes is what instantiates the nature. for example,. a human instantiates a human nature, a nature does not exist independently as an independet subject, as we hear all the time “jesus human nature died but his divine nature didn’t.”

  3. Xavier
    May 24, 2012 @ 3:31 pm

    Dale

    What’s the problem with two “Yahweh”s exactly, i.e. two beings going by that name?

    No problem if it were just a matter of sharing a name. Trinitarians seem to posit a numerical identity to the Son and Father as YHWH.