Sinners cannot understand the Bible!

[fr0d0]

From my understanding Jesus and God are the same entity person, from your use of the word "ousia" and it has two natures from your use of the word "hypostases". So I ask you again. Are God and Jesus the same being person or are they not?

Fixed

Your labels are confusing/ too weak.

I cannot answer your question simply, due to the presence of an equivocable term: 'entity'. Do you mean it in the sense of ousia? Then yes. Do you mean it in the sense of hypostasis? Then no. The Father and Son are distinct in their persons (hypostases) but identical in their essence (ousia).

<edit - changed both bolded to 'person'>

[theVOID]

From my understanding Jesus and God are the same entity persona, from your use of the word "ousia" and it has two natures from your use of the word "hypostases". So I ask you again. Are God and Jesus the same being essence or are they not?

Fixed

Your labels are confusing/ too weak.

So they are the same mind?

[Retorth]

From my understanding Jesus and God are the same entity persona, from your use of the word "ousia" and it has two natures from your use of the word "hypostases". So I ask you again. Are God and Jesus the same being essence or are they not?

Fixed

Your labels are confusing/ too weak.

Persona;

- The narrator of or a character in a literary work, sometimes identified with the author.

- A person's perceived or evident personality, as that of a well-known official, actor, or celebrity; personal image; public role.



Entity;

- Something that has a real existence; thing: corporeal entities.
- Being or existence, esp. when considered as distinct, independent, or self-contained


So instead of referring to him as an entity, you'd much rather refer to him as a character in a literary work? Well that does make sense I guess.

[fr0d0]

Aplogies guys fixed my post

[Retorth]

I cannot answer your question simply, due to the presence of an equivocable term: 'entity'. Do you mean it in the sense of ousia? Then yes. Do you mean it in the sense of hypostasis? Then no. The Father and Son are distinct in their persons (hypostases) but identical in their essence (ousia).

The thing is, the way I see it, you guys look at it with such detail and "attempted clarity" because you are so desperate to have it all make sense. If I am wrong to you, then I am wrong, I cannot argue with you on that because it is a matter of personal opinion. I am merely just stating, thats all.

However, what about the millions of other bible readers out there? Are you gonna say that everyone who reads it differently from you is instantly wrong and that for the entire population to understand the bible we need to critically analyze it as deeply as you do?


"I and the father are one"
"The father is greater then I"

We ask you a simple question whether he is saying he and the father are seperate or if they are the same because clearly the two statements appear to contradict each other and a million other people will tell you the same thing. You can use as many fancy big words to explain the two sentences but they are as they are written.

If you really feel that it is not a contradiction, then personally I feel the bible was written poorly. That is just my opinion.

For the record, I was just quoting Arcanus' response but I am not actually responding to him. I'm just making a general statement.

[fr0d0]

We are not "desperate for it at all to make sense" - this is not interpretation, there is no room for doubt on this one - it's quite a plain and unambiguous statement/ pair of statements. To be a Christian it is necessary to accept this logic. There is no Christian interpretation in conflict with it.

Arcanus has described it extremely accurately. I don't think the bible is written poorly at all. I think it's quite precise.

[theVOID]

We are not "desperate for it at all to make sense" - this is not interpretation, there is no room for doubt on this one - it's quite a plain and unambiguous statement/ pair of statements. To be a Christian it is necessary to accept this logic. There is no Christian interpretation in conflict with it.

Arcanus has described it extremely accurately. I don't think the bible is written poorly at all. I think it's quite precise.

^^^ BRAINWASHED

[Dotard]

Alrighty then.....

Frodo claims it is a clear, unambiguous passage in the bible.

Yet he fails to answer the question. Yes or no.

If Arcanus explained it all so clearly to you Frodo, then answer the question. Yes or no.

Until I get a straight-forward answer I'll assume all I'm getting is "God transcends puny human understanding of 'one' and 'two', singular and plural."

[Ryft]

From my understanding, Jesus and God are the same entity essence, from your use of the word "ousia." And that it has two natures consists of three persons [two of whom are the Father and Son], from your use of the word "hypostases." So I ask you again, "Are God and Jesus the same being, or are they not?"

1. Given the propositions in question, the contrast is Jesus and the Father, not Jesus and God. Part of the problem is your prevarication on this point.

2. In the Greek text, ousia means essence. Jesus and the Father ARE the same with respect to 'essence' (i.e., there is only one God).

3. In the Greek text, hypostasis means person. Jesus and the Father ARE NOT the same with respect to 'person' (i.e., God is three persons).

Experience with non-Christians—whether atheist or Muslim or what have you—has amply demonstrated that confusion almost universally arises from thinking of God as a person, that the 'essence' of deity is encapsulated in a singular 'person'. Since this is decidedly not what Christianity affirms, using it in criticisms of Christian theology is invalid by reason of fallacy (by attacking a God different from that which Christianity affirms). It is patently irrational to criticize a view which Christianity doesn't affirm and then pretend you've produced an intelligible objection against Christianity. It is akin to a wingnut creationist attacking the notion that man evolved from monkeys and then pretending he has produced an intelligible objection against evolution. Beware the company your arguments are keeping.

---

Considering that we do not believe that God exists, it is foolish to argue with the presupposition that he does.

"It is the mark of an educated mind," Aristotle said, "to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." And he is quite right: one does not need to affirm a proposition in order to evaluate it. The fact that you reject a proposition does not in itself say anything about the proposition. As I said to Retorth, the issue was whether or not those two propositions contradicted each another, which your disbelief in God doesn't establish. Isn't that self-evident?

---

Persona, "The narrator of, or a character in, a literary work ..."

It is telling that you skipped past the first definition to quote one that suits your purposes, somewhat like how Dotard facetiously skipped past the 'Theology' category to cite from the 'Medicine/Medical' category. But then it is even more telling that you referenced persona, a Latin word that does not correspond to the Greek hypostasis. Yet it is also telling that you ignore the Greek text entirely, as if the New Testament (from which the propositions are derived) was not translated from Greek text. And so on.

This is rationality?

[Retorth]

Alright, lets say I did whatever you claim. Lets say I skipped past the first definition to quote one that "suits my own purposes" and that I referenced persona, a Latin word that does not correspond to the Greek hypostasis...etc..etc..

You clearly know what you are talking about so far be it for me to continue debating on this seemingly simple yet complex question.

I agree to stand corrected on all these points that you mentioned. I do not know how the bible can be defined as "accurate" when the words used to describe it can seemingly have more then one meaning depending on how you "reference" it but I agree to stand corrected because lets face it, you know what you are talking about. It would be stupid of me to go on and on. lol

All this aside, however, no matter how you reference, define, convert, interpret, or what have you, the bible, it still contains a lot of flaws. It is written by man after all so its no surprise. I rest my case.