Sinners cannot understand the Bible!

[Ryft]

"I and the father are one"—he claims they are both one entity. "The father is greater then I"—he claims they are two entities. It is impossible for one single entity to have half of it greater than itself. That is a clear contradiction ...

It was Jesus who said, "I and the Father are one," but it was you who inserted the term "entity," Retorth. You are inserting into the text something not found in the text in order to create a contradiction that is not there otherwise. Jesus never claims to be the same entity as the Father. Modalism is an ancient heresy long ago refuted.

Please define this 'respect' you speak of. The father is "greater" in what respect? They are "one" in what respect?

The Father is "greater" in respect to divine function (economic distinction), while they are "one" in respect to divine essence (ontological identity). As I have been pointing out in threads elsewhere, what God does immanently is distinct from who God is transcendentally.

How would you describe the statement, "My son's father is me, and that father is greater than I."

Modalism (a.k.a. Sabellianism), a third century heresy followed soon after by Arianism, both of which were obviated by the ecumenical creeds (q.v. Nicaea and Athanasius).

[Retorth]

"I and the father are one"—he claims they are both one entity. "The father is greater then I"—he claims they are two entities. It is impossible for one single entity to have half of it greater than itself. That is a clear contradiction ...

It was Jesus who said, "I and the Father are one," but it was you who inserted the term "entity," Retorth. You are inserting into the text something not found in the text in order to create a contradiction that is not there otherwise. Jesus never claims to be the same entity as the Father. Modalism is an ancient heresy long ago refuted.

Alright I agree that I added the word "entity" and that the word "entity" isn't found in passages that describe the above.

By the way, I had a read on Modalism and I can see that what I questioned you is in fact that which you mentioned. It is all part of Theology which, while an interesting read, doesn't mean anything to me because I disbelieve in god anyway. The way which we interpret the bible may differ but the bottom line is this:

Where is this god that supposedly exists?

[Violet]

entity |ˈentitē|
noun ( pl. -ties)
a thing with distinct and independent existence : church and empire were fused in a single entity.
• existence; being : entity and nonentity.

I cannot see how Jesus's statements would refer to any idea but this... but if they do refer to this: they must (As Retorth showed) be contradictory.

@ Arcanus, I suppose I need to rewrite and then post The Entity (I finally remembered the name!)... then I won't be explaining this lengthy subject out fifteen million times (Btw, @ everyone: I have not copywrited my work <or likely ever will>, so you can use anything I post for whatever you want

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Like many children with an IQ above ambient room temperature, I questioned the idea of a triune god when I was about 6. (OK I was 40 before I actually head the word 'triune')

The Irish nuns used the same explanation used by St Patrick himself when preaching to the savage pagan Irish in 428CE : The Shamrock.

Sister Mary Fartsalot.(that's what we called her) : "Now do you understand?"

Me: "No " (I'm six years old. OF COURSE I'm going to understand one of the most subtle,one might say the most loopy concept in Christian theology. Stupid cow)


Sister; (showing that twitch which meant she was about to belt you one) : "It's a mystery of faith. you just have to believe it"

Me "Oh" (what else COULD I say,if I wanted to avoid physical pain?)


"It's mystery of faith ,you just have to believe it" is the pithiest explanation of Catholic and indeed Christian theology generally I've ever come across.

The unspoken corollary was actually spoken by Brian in "Family Guy; "I see.Believe as I say or I'll hurt you". Once I understood that,I never had any problems with religion at school. I simply said what they wanted to hear.However,the crunts still managed to find a long list of other reasons to beat the living crap out of us.

[Dotard]

So Arcanus, are you maintaining Jesus and God are two separate entities? Are they one in the same or are they not?

Simple answer please. A yes they are or no they are not will suffice.

Correct me if I am mistaken but it seems your answer is, for example, in my public life I campain strongly against prostitution yet I pick them up and use them on the weekends. I could say my public self is greater than my private self.

Kinda like that?

[Ryft]

By the way, I had a read on Modalism and I can see that such is indeed what I put to you ... It is all part of theology which, while an interesting read, doesn't mean anything to me because I disbelieve in God anyway.

Well, the issue was whether or not those two propositions contradicted each another, which your disbelief in God doesn't establish. Suffice it to say they in fact aren't contradictory. But you draw attention to a rather salient point here: if someone rejects belief in God because of objections X, Y, and Z, what is the impact of those objections being systematically refuted?

How we interpret the Bible may differ, but ...

Differences in interpretation can be safely assumed, but at the end of the day it is hardly the point. Rather, the substantive point is why and how we interpret it as we do, for surely you would agree that some methods stand up under scrutiny better than others—as our brief experience demonstrated. What a person believes is not nearly as important as why they believe it. I enter such discussions assuming in advance that people interpret the Bible differently, evaluating instead the coherence and integrity of their reasoning. You believed Jesus said that he and the Father are one entity, while elsewhere saying that the Father is an entity greater than he. I ignored what you believed and focused instead on why you believed it. If you want to change someone's conclusion, address how they reached it.

I cannot see how Jesus' statements would refer to any idea other than this. But if they do refer to this, then (as Retorth showed) they must be contradictory.

Taken by themselves, I suppose it's possible. But "taken by themselves" is the same irresponsible and faulty practice as the quote-mining done by creationist wingnuts—ripping quotes from their context and interpreting them however you like—and I cannot fathom why someone would commend such a practice.

So, Arcanus, are you maintaining Jesus and God are two separate entities? Are they one and the same, or are they not? Simple answer please. A "yes they are" or a "no they are not" will suffice.

This reminds me of Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country where, as the prosecutor during Captain Kirk's trial, General Chang shouts, "Do you deny being demoted for these charges? Don't wait for the translation! Answer me now!"

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).

[Dotard]

The Father and Son are distinct in their persons (hypostases) but identical in their essence (ousia).

What a nice way to say split personality.

Really. Bottom line that is what you are saying right? This is one being. One entity (being or existence, esp. when considered as distinct, independent, or self-contained: is the definition I'm using here). That has two different personalities. And each one views the other as a distinct individual entity.

Anyway I fail to see being distinct in their persons has anything to do with the accumulation of blood or its solid components in parts of an organ or body due to poor circulation. (hypostases)

[Ryft]

What a nice way to say split personality. Really. Bottom line that is what you are saying, right?

First, since "split personality" presupposes a single person, that cannot be what I am saying. Two persons with distinct personalities does not a "split personality" make. Please think rationally. Second, do try to cite relevant sources. An English dictionary is not a philosophical reference, much less a theological one, and even less a Greek language reference. Third, if you absolutely must reference an English dictionary, do try to not skip past the 'Theology' category to cite from the 'Medicine/Medical' one.

Is this really your strongest rebuttal, Dotard?

[Dotard]

Jeez... some people can't take a joke. Did you not note the big grinning face? It was there to note the statement was made in humor.

So. God and Jesus are two separate personages. Wait. You just said they were identical in their ousia.

What?

Jesus man. I don't see what is so difficult in answering me that simple question. "Are God and Jesus the same frickin' being or are they two separate beings?

From my understanding Jesus and God are the same entity, 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 or are they not?

[theVOID]

What a nice way to say split personality. Really. Bottom line that is what you are saying, right?

First, since "split personality" presupposes a single person, that cannot be what I am saying. Two persons with distinct personalities does not a "split personality" make. Please think rationally. Second, do try to cite relevant sources. An English dictionary is not a philosophical reference, much less a theological one, and even less a Greek language reference. Third, if you absolutely must reference an English dictionary, do try to not skip past the 'Theology' category to cite from the 'Medicine/Medical' one.

Is this really your strongest rebuttal, Dotard?

1. Assuming it is true, it is not a split personality.

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

3. That leaves us with Jesus who (if he existed) thought he was God and his son at the same time. Now i hate to be blunt, but that's quite a mental issue going on there.

So Jesus (if he existed) is only sane if God is real, and seeing as no evidence exists to support such a statement, i conclude Jesus (if he existed) was insane.