Appeal: direct answer
From Religion Debate: Islam vs Christianity.
- #108425:18upheld Jay Dyer epainos: direct answer (+2)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 2 points.
“Christ does not have a human person, and that's why the the notion about divine mind is a two minds scenario where he shares a divine mind with the father, and he has limitations in his human mind.”
Diogenes: He answers the Mark 13:32 "two minds" objection on its own terms with the two-natures/one-person distinction and cites a checkable patristic source (Basil, Letter 234).- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay has consistently defended Trinitarian/Chalcedonian orthodoxy throughout the debate (distinct persons, one essence, two natures in Christ); this answer is consistent with that position, not a departure or new claim. This directly answers Daniel's Mark 13:32 "two minds implies two entities/polytheism" challenge on its own terms, using the classical two-natures-one-person Chalcedonian distinction, and is followed immediately in the same turn by a citation to a checkable patristic source (Basil's Letter 234). This is a genuine direct answer to a question actually pressed by the opponent.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument", on the same ledger as the callout. This directly takes up Daniel's original opening challenge to explain how the Father, Son, and Spirit can be one God without separate minds: Jay lays out the premise that Christ has no separate human person, only a human nature/mind united to the one divine mind shared with the Father, concluding that the "two minds" language reflects human/divine natures rather than distinct divine persons or gods. It states premises and a conclusion plainly in answer to the question actually posed, even though Daniel disputes its adequacy later.
- Plato uphold: On the record: S4's position of record is Trinitarian orthodoxy with a two-natures/one-person Christology; this quote applies exactly that framework to answer Daniel's Mark 13:32 "two minds" challenge, consistent with what he argued from his first response onward (including the Basil citation). Daniel's opening and subsequent challenge demanded an explanation of how the Son could lack knowledge the Father has without being a separate mind/entity, and Jay directly answers this with the two-natures/one-person distinction, which is substantive engagement rather than evasion.
Appeal this callout
Appeals come only from the debaters themselves. Sign in with Google to start; you'll then prove which debater you are, once.