(June 22, 2018 at 3:32 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(June 22, 2018 at 3:12 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Before I respond, I'd like to know your beliefs regarding the nature of Christ, so I don't misrepresent you.  The traditional doctrine is that Christ was fully human and fully divine, which makes sense to those who, for whatever reason, do not understand the meaning of the word 'fully'.  Or was it some split, that, say, Jesus was 60% divine and 40% human?  Or were there two Jesuses, one human and one divine?  What exactly are your beliefs here?

Jesus had all the essential attributes of a human nature and all the essential attributes of a divine nature. There were some aspects of the divine nature that were set aside:  

Philippians 2:5-8 Paul says "Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross."

Two natures in one person. Not a divided person.

It's not clear what specific meaning to attach to the passage you cite, as it's vague and speaks in metaphor. It's also unclear what to make of it given that it appears to be contradicted by Colossians 2:9 which says: "For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily..." All it seems to indicate is that no one checked the bible for consistency.

Regardless, I'm not sure this formulation of yours is entirely helpful. It seems to raise more questions than it answers.

Is it not an essential attribute of God that he is not composed of any parts?
Is it not an essential attribute of man that he consists of a body and a soul or spirit?
Is it not an essential attribute of God that he is a necessary being?
Is it not an essential attribute of man that he is a contingent being?
Is it not an essential attribute of God that he is immortal?
Is it not an essential attribute of man that he is mortal?

Google dictionary defines an essence as, "a property or group of properties of something without which it would not exist or be what it is." Wikipedia for its part has this to say about essence:

Quote:In philosophy, essence is the property or set of properties that make an entity or substance what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity, and without which it loses its identity. Essence is contrasted with accident: a property that the entity or substance has contingently, without which the substance can still retain its identity. ... For Aristotle and his scholastic followers, the notion of essence is closely linked to that of definition (ὁρισμός horismos).

Wikipedia || Essence

So a thing's essence is that by which we are able to identify something as a specific kind of thing. Thusly, a thing maintains a particular identity only in so far as it possesses all and only those essential properties which define that thing. If you subtract essential properties from a thing, then it is no longer that thing. This pertains to Christ if the supposed attributes he gave up are essential properties. (Note that the trinity is defined as three persons who possess one essence. If Jesus and God the Father possess different essential properties, you've entered the land of polytheism.) So a thing is no longer that thing if it is without some of the essential properties which define that thing. Likewise, if a thing possesses additional essential properties, it is no longer that thing, for the thing that it was is without essential properties which it has. (This does not apply to accidental properties which you can add and subtract all day long.) It's also worth noting that the essential attributes which define a man do so only with respect to the man, not necessarily with respect to Jesus, as they are not the sole essential properties which Jesus possesses. If Jesus possesses both the essential properties of man and God, then he is neither man nor God, but something else entirely new. (Which violates the doctrine that Christ is co-eternal with God the Father.) In that case, Jesus would be 'a' god, perhaps, but not God with a capital 'G'. The only way you can successfully identify Jesus as God is to treat the man-like properties as accidental properties, such that Jesus does possess all and only those essential properties which define him as God. But then your contention that Jesus is both man and God is false because he no longer possesses the essential properties of a man. It seems that the only way you can reach the conclusion that Jesus is both man and God, at least along this path, is by playing with essential properties in a way which is not valid, which undermines your entire argument.

(June 22, 2018 at 4:43 pm)*Deidre* Wrote: I didn't know you speak for God, Drich. lol

Good lawd, get over yourself.

All Christians do in places like this. that is why we must measure our words carefully.

---

(June 22, 2018 at 4:53 pm)Khemikal Wrote: OFC he does.  His god lives inside his head.  Who else would speak for him if drich wouldn;t.

---

(June 22, 2018 at 3:37 pm)Drich Wrote: so then why would a loving God allow bad things to happen???
Do you see? a loving God by the defination of loving can't that = paradox paradox= no god in a closed mind. So then what are the options? look at the word loving, is it a valid interpertation of the word the greeks used to describe that aspect of god? answer??? no. the Greeks used Agape. Agape only describes one aspect of love the part that will see you through pain and suffering the aspect that supports respect and undeserved support. so do God love? no not as you understand the word. God Agape

This is just about the only thing worth responding too..since it;s fact adjacent.

Do I see a paradox between a loving god and a god that allows bad things to happen..or, at least doesn;t do anything when they do?  No.  I see people who love either allowing bad things to happen or being incap[able of preventing them from happening.  The saving grace, in their case..is that they would if they could - that they at least love even though they can;t make al;l the bad things go away.  "Paradoxes" like these aren;t really a problem for me, because I;m not a believer, theyre a problem for believers...but only insomuch as they cant stand to admit that every mythology contains inconsistency.

Insisting that god actually doesnt love, but is somehow benevolent doesn;t escape this particular complaint in any case..so you;ve tied your scrotum into a knot for no good god damned reason and I again point out that others feel no need to do so.  Your own personal jesus is an inconsistent dick....amd other peoples personal jesus are also commonly inconsistent..but at least they love.

You are wrong again. God is consistent and love, but with in the confines of Agape. God does not "love" God Agape' with i the confines of Agape God's love is limitless.

---

(June 22, 2018 at 7:13 pm)emjay Wrote:

(June 22, 2018 at 2:09 pm)Khemikal Wrote: You;re not going to get a "conversation" out of Drich, lol. Heres here to fish for souls by telling you you;re wrong about everything.

Eros.  It actually is the desire of value and the seeking out of value or transcendent beauty..at least in it;s classical conception. In point of fact..eros -is- love.  The other categories, like philia...that was friendship.  Agape...good will and benevolence.  When Drich thinks eros he thinks titties....but thats not actually what it was envisioned as, even if it included that as the very lowest form of eros.  Of the body driving the eros car rather than the soul doing so.

Well yeah, I know he's here to preach, and how he goes about it, but my interest here was in understanding these three terms - eros, agape, and philia - in reference to love in general and the question of the OP. So on that score I was interested in his, or anyone else's, perspectives on those three terms... to supplement and/or correct my own understanding from reading the book. So since he tends to talk about agape a lot, there was no reason not to think he wouldn't be knowledgeable about the subject, what it's defined as at least. Just as you are, and just as I welcome your perspective as well. After all, both of your descriptions of the three seem pretty similar, except for his focus on the erotic of eros... but if that's how he uses the term, then so be it... that's his perspective... all to be weighed into the final analysis so to speak. But since I don't see it like that... ie as erotic only... and neither do you apparently... but instead (now... following my 'gross misunderstanding') see it as strictly about egocentric, but not 'othercentric', value-seeking of any kind (which still may be wrong... but that's where I'm up to with my understanding)... it means than in order to have a fruitful discussion with him I need to either reformulate my questions in his usage of the terms, or reformulate them without use of the terms at all... or at least not with the contentious eros, since the only alternative is us talking past each other using different definitions. In other words that's probably the end of the discussion for now... just need to keep on reading.

Just so we are clear The word Eros can be used in two different ways. from a 'clinical persective'
: the sum of life-preserving instincts that are manifested as impulses to gratify basic needs, as sublimated impulses, and as impulses to protect and preserve the body and mind — compare

Or as a form of 'greek love' sexual or erotic love or desire.

I know the word has other implications, but not when spoken of through the lens of love.

---

(June 22, 2018 at 7:44 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(June 22, 2018 at 7:13 pm)emjay Wrote: But since I don't see it like that... ie as erotic only... and neither do you apparently... but instead (now... following my 'gross misunderstanding') see it as strictly about egocentric, but not 'othercentric', value-seeking of any kind (which still may be wrong... but that's where I'm up to with my understanding)... it means than in order to have a fruitful discussion with him I need to either reformulate my questions in his usage of the terms, or reformulate them without use of the terms at all... or at least not with the contentious eros, since the only alternative is us talking past each other using different definitions. In other words that's probably the end of the discussion for now... just need to keep on reading.

"Otherseeking" would be storge.  It gets lost as people focus on the other three.  Natural affection and empathy.  The exclusive otherseeking value.  

It;s a pretty simple breakdown (particularly for all the ink spilt on account of it).  

Eros-Love
Philia-Friendship
Storge-Empathy
Agape-Benevolence

The question for drich would be - Is god benevolent?   Magic hateball says no, lol.  

Reference material please... I looked up these words using several main stream koine greek sources and none of them show this break down nor these definitions.

By your narrow one word definition I'd ask you is God love? The bible repeats this phrase over and over and each time the bible used this word it is always a variant on the word Agape.

(June 22, 2018 at 2:09 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(June 22, 2018 at 1:31 pm)emjay Wrote: Er... awkward But maybe I just wanted to have a discussion rather an argument, because I'm actually interested in the subject and it's new to me... and there's no point if we're talking about different things.

Anyway, what did I get right? I don't hear that very often

You;re not going to get a "conversation" out of Drich, lol. Heres here to fish for souls by telling you you;re wrong about everything.

Eros.  It actually is the desire of value and the seeking out of value or transcendent beauty..at least in it;s classical conception. In point of fact..eros -is- love.  The other categories, like philia...that was friendship.  Agape...good will and benevolence.  When Drich thinks eros he thinks titties....but thats not actually what it was envisioned as, even if it included that as the very lowest form of eros.  Of the body driving the eros car rather than the soul doing so.

Here's the thing sport. When I tell you are wrong I can do so with source material to back me up. Like when I divid the word eros into a clinical term and a description for one of the greek forms of 'love.' I can give you primary and secondary material to support what i have to say.

You best effort usually begins with nut-huh, and you give some folkie/hipster definition and hope it will stick with out being challenged by anything real.

Here's the thing. I gave primary and secondary source material to prove my definition from a transitive and contextual perspective. and again all you have provided so far is a 'nut-huh.'

---

(June 22, 2018 at 1:00 pm)Drich Wrote:

---

that's a lie earlier this week you were asking my to "go get papa."

You can;t possibly be so dull as to imagine that I thought you would..or were even capable of doing so..can you...?
I just caught you in a lie what do you mean?

---

Continuing along.  If a god has love, then it seeks, it desires, it pursues that beauty and value it sees but does not possess.  A god may not have a body, so it may not seek or desire or find value in my peener...lustful bodily eros, butithe must in some way be incomplete and unwhole in the absence of my possession as a valuable and beautiful thing.

A god asserted to be complete and whole in every way, that desires for nothing because it has everything.....cannot possibly love, cannot express eros..because love is found in the seeking.  It may be benevolent, (agape).  It may be friendly (philia)..it may even be empathetic (storge)..but it does not love....eros.

More broadly, the retrograde christians god possesses none of these things by reference to it;s purported actions and position...all retrograde christians assertions to the contrary...but is that really surprising?  They didn;t come up with any of this, it was yet another borrowed ladder grafted onto their confused mythology as a bid to purchase the credibility that came with classical pagan intellectual traditions.

---

(June 23, 2018 at 6:22 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(June 22, 2018 at 3:32 pm)SteveII Wrote: Jesus had all the essential attributes of a human nature and all the essential attributes of a divine nature. There were some aspects of the divine nature that were set aside:  

Philippians 2:5-8 Paul says "Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross."

Two natures in one person. Not a divided person.

It's not clear what specific meaning to attach to the passage you cite, as it's vague and speaks in metaphor.  It's also unclear what to make of it given that it appears to be contradicted by Colossians 2:9 which says: "For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily..."  All it seems to indicate is that no one checked the bible for consistency.

Regardless, I'm not sure this formulation of yours is entirely helpful.  It seems to raise more questions than it answers.

Is it not an essential attribute of God that he is not composed of any parts?
Is it not an essential attribute of man that he consists of a body and a soul or spirit?
Is it not an essential attribute of God that he is a necessary being?
Is it not an essential attribute of man that he is a contingent being?
Is it not an essential attribute of God that he is immortal?
Is it not an essential attribute of man that he is mortal?

Google dictionary defines an essence as, "a property or group of properties of something without which it would not exist or be what it is."  Wikipedia for its part has this to say about essence:

Quote:In philosophy, essence is the property or set of properties that make an entity or substance what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity, and without which it loses its identity. Essence is contrasted with accident: a property that the entity or substance has contingently, without which the substance can still retain its identity. ... For Aristotle and his scholastic followers, the notion of essence is closely linked to that of definition (ὁρισμός horismos).

Wikipedia || Essence

So a thing's essence is that by which we are able to identify something as a specific kind of thing.  Thusly, a thing maintains a particular identity only in so far as it possesses all and only those essential properties which define that thing.  If you subtract essential properties from a thing, then it is no longer that thing.  This pertains to Christ if the supposed attributes he gave up are essential properties.  (Note that the trinity is defined as three persons who possess one essence.  If Jesus and God the Father possess different essential properties, you've entered the land of polytheism.)  So a thing is no longer that thing if it is without some of the essential properties which define that thing.  Likewise, if a thing possesses additional essential properties, it is no longer that thing, for the thing that it was is without essential properties which it has.  (This does not apply to accidental properties which you can add and subtract all day long.)  It's also worth noting that the essential attributes which define a man do so only with respect to the man, not necessarily with respect to Jesus, as they are not the sole essential properties which Jesus possesses.  If Jesus possesses both the essential properties of man and God, then he is neither man nor God, but something else entirely new.  (Which violates the doctrine that Christ is co-eternal with God the Father.)  In that case, Jesus would be 'a' god, perhaps, but not God with a capital 'G'.  The only way you can successfully identify Jesus as God is to treat the man-like properties as accidental properties, such that Jesus does possess all and only those essential properties which define him as God.  But then your contention that Jesus is both man and God is false because he no longer possesses the essential properties of a man.  It seems that the only way you can reach the conclusion that Jesus is both man and God, at least along this path, is by playing with essential properties in a way which is not valid, which undermines your entire argument.

valid response for maybe "your specific version of the God of the bible. However this description fails in light of Who the God of the bible claims to be.

The God of the bible first and foremost is the Great I am. This may not seem like anything more than a throwback to a sailor cartoon. but to be an I am is to have awareness to be the great I am is to be the author of all awareness. Meaning God not only know who he is and we are God know all that needs to be.

Second attribute the God of the bible aware Himself is the simplest and yet most complete description of any diet and yet so whole no paradox or wiseman could corrupt His title. God calls Himself the alpha and omega, mean He is the first and the last the first means to originate or conceptualize what is needed and the last being the one with the authority and power to execute what He then wants.

So how does this undermine your thoughts on God?/Your minimum requirements? The I am bit identifies exactly what was needed for God to indewell man. The Alpha and Omega conceives and the executes placing Christ the Son in the host of Jesus Bar Joseph of Nazareth. In short God can be and do as much or as little as He needed to be to be God and man at the same time.

(June 25, 2018 at 12:34 pm)Drich Wrote: In short God can be and do as much or as little as He needed to be to be God and man at the same time.

Unless being so is impossible. It's routinely acknowledged that God can't create square circles. What relationship you see between God being the "I am" and this question is something you'll have to elucidate more completely. If all you're saying is that God can do anything he wants to do, then most would disagree with you on that point. So you need something more specific than what you've claimed here. You'd have to start by at least clarifying what it means to be both God and man. If being God and man is fundamentally incoherent, no amount of Alpha and Omega will get you there.

More importantly, it must square with Christian theology, and the bible, else you're just wasting your time and mine.

(June 25, 2018 at 12:34 pm)Drich Wrote: In short God can be and do as much or as little as He needed to be to be God and man at the same time.

In other words: with the apparent seemliness of god doing absolutely nothing, he might as well not exist.

(June 23, 2018 at 6:22 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(June 22, 2018 at 3:32 pm)SteveII Wrote: Jesus had all the essential attributes of a human nature and all the essential attributes of a divine nature. There were some aspects of the divine nature that were set aside:  

Philippians 2:5-8 Paul says "Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross."

Two natures in one person. Not a divided person.

It's not clear what specific meaning to attach to the passage you cite, as it's vague and speaks in metaphor.  It's also unclear what to make of it given that it appears to be contradicted by Colossians 2:9 which says: "For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily..."  All it seems to indicate is that no one checked the bible for consistency.

Regardless, I'm not sure this formulation of yours is entirely helpful.  It seems to raise more questions than it answers.

Is it not an essential attribute of God that he is not composed of any parts?
Is it not an essential attribute of man that he consists of a body and a soul or spirit?
Is it not an essential attribute of God that he is a necessary being?
Is it not an essential attribute of man that he is a contingent being?
Is it not an essential attribute of God that he is immortal?
Is it not an essential attribute of man that he is mortal?

I don't think any of these pairs are problems. You have a new entity: God incarnate - with two natures:

1. The divine nature is immaterial, is a necessary being and is immortal
2. The human nature is physical, contingent, and mortal. 

Being combined does not need to effect the essential attributes of the other. I discuss how this might work below.

Quote:Google dictionary defines an essence as, "a property or group of properties of something without which it would not exist or be what it is."  Wikipedia for its part has this to say about essence:

Quote:In philosophy, essence is the property or set of properties that make an entity or substance what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity, and without which it loses its identity. Essence is contrasted with accident: a property that the entity or substance has contingently, without which the substance can still retain its identity. ... For Aristotle and his scholastic followers, the notion of essence is closely linked to that of definition (ὁρισμός horismos).

Wikipedia || Essence

So a thing's essence is that by which we are able to identify something as a specific kind of thing.  Thusly, a thing maintains a particular identity only in so far as it possesses all and only those essential properties which define that thing.  If you subtract essential properties from a thing, then it is no longer that thing.  This pertains to Christ if the supposed attributes he gave up are essential properties.  (Note that the trinity is defined as three persons who possess one essence.  If Jesus and God the Father possess different essential properties, you've entered the land of polytheism.)  So a thing is no longer that thing if it is without some of the essential properties which define that thing.  Likewise, if a thing possesses additional essential properties, it is no longer that thing, for the thing that it was is without essential properties which it has.  (This does not apply to accidental properties which you can add and subtract all day long.)  It's also worth noting that the essential attributes which define a man do so only with respect to the man, not necessarily with respect to Jesus, as they are not the sole essential properties which Jesus possesses.  If Jesus possesses both the essential properties of man and God, then he is neither man nor God, but something else entirely new.  (Which violates the doctrine that Christ is co-eternal with God the Father.)  In that case, Jesus would be 'a' god, perhaps, but not God with a capital 'G'.  The only way you can successfully identify Jesus as God is to treat the man-like properties as accidental properties, such that Jesus does possess all and only those essential properties which define him as God.  But then your contention that Jesus is both man and God is false because he no longer possesses the essential properties of a man.  It seems that the only way you can reach the conclusion that Jesus is both man and God, at least along this path, is by playing with essential properties in a way which is not valid, which undermines your entire argument.

Let me preface this answer by saying that the Bible does not tell us how this is done. We are left with trying to figure out an explanation that is not a logical mess, is true to the information that we are given, and is theologically sound (does not have unwanted conclusions). This is one such model:

First, you are right that if God the Son gave up any essential properties of being God in becoming Jesus, that would be problematic in a number of ways. So, I don't think that is how it worked. Jesus retained all divine attributes.

Second, we are made in the image of God. It seems that a large part of this is our mind/soul (same thing for this discussion) or personhood. So the commonality between humans and God is a mind/soul (albeit with infinitely different capacities). The mind/soul/personhood of Jesus was divine. The physical body and the brain are human--including desires, emotions, hunger, pain, and other human-specific states which inform the mind. Just like any regular man, he had both immaterial and material aspects in one entity (obviously I think that mind/body dualism is correct).

Thirdly, now what to do with all the divine attributes that Jesus didn't seem to have? Jesus as a boy "grew in wisdom, stature, and favor with God and man," there were things he did not know, or have complete control over, he was temporal, finite, limited, etc. I think Jesus' divine attributes were subconscious. Let me explain. 

A. Just like you have knowledge of something (like where you left your car keys) but cannot access it.
B. Just like a person can be hypnotized and there is a layer of knowledge that is there but not consciously accessible. On the other side of that coin, you can be hypnotized not so see things that are right in front of you. I am not saying Jesus was hypnotized, but the mind can be segmented.
C. That subliminal layer of knowledge can inform the conscious but you are not certain why-- for example, Jesus was not able to sin even as a young boy. 
D. I tend to think that Jesus did not do miracles using his own power. There is evidence that the Spirit was the one providing the power. 
E. How this limitation was imposed is an open question for which we will not get an answer.

With this understanding, Jesus's experienced human life much like we do--with many of the same struggles and limitations. This also illustrates more fully why your statement a few posts back was wrong about Jesus having all divine power and knowledge of the end result somehow takes away from the effect. 

In conclusion, I will say that this model might not be right. However, it is reasonable and consistent with basic theology and serves to protect the concept from charges of irrationality.

All praise to God who destroys the oppressors and avenges the oppressed.

(June 25, 2018 at 7:33 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(June 25, 2018 at 12:34 pm)Drich Wrote: In short God can be and do as much or as little as He needed to be to be God and man at the same time.

Unless being so is impossible.  It's routinely acknowledged that God can't create square circles.  What relationship you see between God being the "I am" and this question is something you'll have to elucidate more completely.  If all you're saying is that God can do anything he wants to do, then most would disagree with you on that point.  So you need something more specific than what you've claimed here.  You'd have to start by at least clarifying what it means to be both God and man.   If being God and man is fundamentally incoherent, no amount of Alpha and Omega will get you there.

More importantly, it must square with Christian theology, and the bible, else you're just wasting your time and mine.

well one, I don't know anyone who would disagree that God could do anything He wants to do. again.. that is the definition of alpha and omega. Let's look at where God told john of patmos this: Rev1:8 The Lord God says, “I am the Alpha and the Omega.[c] I am the one who is, who always was, and who is coming. I am the All-Powerful.”

The "I AM" God declares Himself to be all powerful through the declaration of being the alpha and omega. Alpha being the first thought or authority and omega meaning the last who has a say on any such matter. In other words He is complete no other source or authority superceeds Him.
Which is why (on this statement alone) no one can argue that God can't do whatever God seeks to do. Again what authority what rule would be empowered to challenge or make God cease? on who's authority if God is the first word and last word on anything He/I am decides to do.

God and man I thought it important to first describe what it is to be God. As we discussed the subdivision of man (body mind Spirit Soul.)

God or rather Christ Had a mind and body, like ours. he got hurt and he got hungry. When He was tempted in the desert His body and mind were weaken with 40 fast, which tested his spirit or his instinct or need for self preservation to do things Satan's way and not the way f the Father. (Satan way: "bow to me and all you see is yours." Father's way: die on the cross) which means he had a spirit like we did. So then that leaves a soul. did Jesus have a soul like we do? yes, but his soul was the son of God, and not a rank in file member of God's creation. We know this because he refers to himself as such. As well as referring to himself as the son of man. which means he claimed both.

So the question you may ask can look like: did jesus retain his omnipotence? no does that diminish him as God? no As He was still the son of God. Doesn't God have to be omnipotent? Again an alpha and omega can be whatever He wants to be. (per His quoted words) That is where the R/C church f's up in their theological views of God. the see God as omnimax all the time, and is bound by the rules of omnimax meaning God must be the extreme in power knowledge love ect... that is why you guys can come up with so many paradoxes where the church says omnimax only and the bible shows God doing something contrary. In truth an alpha and omega can is so all powerful he can lessen or weaken himself to fit a smaller role if need be. which is an expression of absolute/complete power. If God's power only work one way then He would be incomplete. The ability to completely fill a need or meet someone 1/2 way is a true power. The oppsite is being obligated to go all the way when you know 1/2 is what is needed.

So in essence Jesus was limited by the same things we are limited by, but at the same time where we have our soul Jesus had the Son of God.

Again try to imagine we are an amalgamation of parts that create a being. we are a physical body, the body has a mind to make it function, the spirit is the body's instinct it's the body's direction reason and base function. (think ape dolphin dog) the soul which is the higher cognitive ability God gave us. the part of us that can potentially last forever. God reduced Himself down to fit this frame work, but rather than a common soul Jesus the boby was indwelled with the Son of God.

---

(June 25, 2018 at 7:37 pm)Kit Wrote:

(June 25, 2018 at 12:34 pm)Drich Wrote: In short God can be and do as much or as little as He needed to be to be God and man at the same time.

In other words: with the apparent seemliness of god doing absolutely nothing, he might as well not exist.

To those who build their homes on the sand yes! To other's God rains down all manner of blessing and riches.

(June 26, 2018 at 11:54 am)Drich Wrote: To those who build their homes on the sand yes! To other's God rains down all manner of blessing and riches.

More realistically, they are illogically attributing life to god.

(June 26, 2018 at 11:54 am)Drich Wrote:

(June 25, 2018 at 7:33 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Unless being so is impossible.  It's routinely acknowledged that God can't create square circles.  What relationship you see between God being the "I am" and this question is something you'll have to elucidate more completely.  If all you're saying is that God can do anything he wants to do, then most would disagree with you on that point.  So you need something more specific than what you've claimed here.  You'd have to start by at least clarifying what it means to be both God and man.   If being God and man is fundamentally incoherent, no amount of Alpha and Omega will get you there.

More importantly, it must square with Christian theology, and the bible, else you're just wasting your time and mine.

well one, I don't know anyone who would disagree that God could do anything He wants to do. again.. that is the definition of alpha and omega.

Quote:The omnipotence paradox is a family of paradoxes that arise with some understandings of the term 'omnipotent'. The paradox arises, for example, if one assumes that an omnipotent being has no limits and is capable of realizing any outcome, even logically contradictory ideas such as creating square circles. A no-limits understanding of omnipotence such as this has been rejected by theologians from Thomas Aquinas to contemporary philosophers of religion, such as Alvin Plantinga.

Wikipedia || Omnipotence paradox