- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,778
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Nobody can see dirt that has been swept under the rug.I don`t think I have any major problems from a doctrine standpoint.
Nobody can see dirt that has been swept under the rug.
You ignore the Scriptures that I provide. Moreover, Scripture is a moot point when a position can be shown internally self-contradictory. Example.I can. I`m one of the most open-minded people you would ever meet. But you lose me when you start disagreeing with scriptures or fail to provide them.
The irony of this statement is that even if it is as true as you think it is, it's not necessarily worth writing home about! Given that most people are zero-percent open-minded, you only need to be 1% open minded to outperform them. Which isn't saying much.I`m one of the most open-minded people you would ever meet.
You ignore the Scriptures that I provide. Moreover, Scripture is a moot point when a position can be shown internally self-contradictory. Example.
(1) God is immutable.
(2) God became man.
Huh?
The irony of this statement is that even if it is as true as you think it is, it's not necessarily worth writing home about! Given that most people are zero-percent open-minded, you only need to be 1% open minded to outperform them. Which isn't saying much.
(That's certainly not an adequate response to the observations I made a few posts back).God didn`t change when He became a man. It`s not complicated.
Really? Because every professional theologian out there seems to believe it too complicated to comprehend. Of course they are speaking from the standpoint of traditional metaphysical assumptions. On MY assumptions, the Incarnation IS a simple matter.It`s not complicated.
(That's certainly not an adequate response to the observations I made a few posts back).
If nothing changed, there was no Incarnation. The purpose of the Incarnation is for the Son of God to walk in human-like experience. If nothing changed - if He continued to walk in the same knowledge, strength, immutable holiness, etc, then the Incarnation as such never transpired, human experience was never realized. For one thing this means that His so-called "temptation" in the wilderness would be a façade (a lie and a farce). How can an immutably holy God suffer real temptation?
Really? Because every professional theologian out there seems to believe it too complicated to comprehend. Of course they are speaking from the standpoint of traditional metaphysical assumptions. On MY assumptions, the Incarnation IS a simple matter.
Thus your "solution" to the Incarnation is basically, "well it all just works", Jesus was "part of the Trinity" and "acquired humanity" - and thus you purport to make simple what the theologians say is incomprehensible.In the case of Jesus. He was sent by God, His Spirit is the same stuff God is made of, He is the Theophany, but He is not the entirety of God. God, Himself does not change. The humanity of Jesus does not have an effect on that. God did not stop being God when He sent Jesus to the earth. Nor has Jesus changed, His humanity is an addon not a systemic change.
No Trinitarian would claim that the Son is the entirety of God - that's a moot point, and thus not a response.He is the Theophany, but He is not the entirety of God.
Thus your "solution" to the Incarnation is basically, "well it all just works", Jesus was "part of the Trinity" and "acquired humanity" - and thus you purport to make simple what the theologians say is incomprehensible.
Sorry doesn't wash. God doesn't change? Easily refuted by a simple syllogism:
(1). Jesus is God
(2). Jesus experienced change.
(3) Therefore God experienced change.
What you are trying to claim is something like this:
(1) God didn't change. His humanity changed.
Or you'd perhaps prefer to put it like this:
(1) God didn't change. His theophany changed.
As if His humanity/theophany were an external thing (a mere possession), something other than He Himself. That's not an Incarnation. The Son of God did not merely alter one of His possessions. That wouldn't make for a real incarnation. That's like saying, "I'll atone for the sin of the whole world. All I have to do is put one of my possessions on the cross. Won't hurt me a bit." Again, if the Incarnation spelled no changes for the Godhead, then the Son wasn't incarnated.
You're trying to superficially reconcile two incompatible propositions.
(1) God is immutable.
(2) God became man.
Superficial "responses" don't wash - they are tantamount to a state of denial.
No Trinitarian would claim that the Son is the entirety of God - that's a moot point, and thus not a response.
Is God immutable, or not, in your view? Do you believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share like attributes? Immutable in holiness, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence? Orthodoxy certainly thinks so. How does such a God arrive on earth an infant devoid of knowledge, miniscule in strength, and capable of suffering real temptation (without it being a facade).
And by the way, suffering is measured by the extent to which it disables/cripples us. For example if the pain in my legs and back is too excruciating, I simply will not be able to go jogging, or at least not at the same uninterrupted velocity as I did before. An omnipotent God - an immutably omnipotent God - is by definition impassible (as he would have zero gradations of disablement), therefore, and thus could not suffer on the cross.
All your responses have done is engaged in mere hand-waving. Basically you're saying, "I accept the Incarnation because I see it in the KJV".Everything I attempted to share with you is rooted solidly in scriptures. Unfortunately, you fight truth with humanistic fallacies. I don`t think I can help you.
All your responses have done is engaged in mere hand-waving. Basically you're saying, "I accept the Incarnation because I see it in the KJV".
But neither you nor traditional Christology has an understanding of God shown logically consistent with an Incarnation. And thus, rather than acknowledge the reality of the problem, you've chosen to remain in denial. You say that you are an open-minded person. So? Everyone claims to be open-minded. But actions speak louder than words.
You will therefore persist in your current definition of God and, I'm confident, will someday have to explain to Him why you bought into a definition of Him that monumentally insults Him. Nobody forced you to do so.
All your responses have done is engaged in mere hand-waving. Basically you're saying, "I accept the Incarnation because I see it in the KJV".
But neither you nor traditional Christology has an understanding of God shown logically consistent with an Incarnation. And thus, rather than acknowledge the reality of the problem, you've chosen to remain in denial. You say that you are an open-minded person. So? Everyone claims to be open-minded. But actions speak louder than words.
You will therefore persist in your current definition of God and, I'm confident, will someday have to explain to Him why you bought into a definition of Him that monumentally insults Him. Nobody forced you to do so.
I don't get it. How many times do I have to say I'm a Trinitarian?I keep thinking that you deny the deity of Christ. That is the impression you give me.
I don't get it. How many times do I have to say I'm a Trinitarian?
Huh?Well, hard to get a bead on you other than the obvious college brainwash job.
How is that NOT a change?God didn`t change when He became a man. It`s not complicated.
How is that NOT a change?
Let's try this again. Let's see if I understand you. Prior to the Incarnation wasn't the Son immutable in omniscience, omnipotence, and holiness, in your view? In other words He was fully divine, right? (Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you).
And thus if there was no alteration to that status quo, there was no Incarnation, right? In other words if things continued just as they always did, then no Incarnation ever happened, right? I think you'll agree.
So what is this thing that we call "The Incarnation"? What happened to the Son, in your view?
And whatever your answer here might be, can you explain why you claim it did not involve change?
How is that NOT a change?
Let's try this again. Let's see if I understand you. Prior to the Incarnation wasn't the Son immutable in omniscience, omnipotence, and holiness, in your view? In other words He was fully divine, right? (Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you).
And thus if there was no alteration to that status quo, there was no Incarnation, right? In other words if things continued just as they always did, then no Incarnation ever happened, right? I think you'll agree.
So what is this thing that we call "The Incarnation"? What happened to the Son, in your view?
And whatever your answer here might be, can you explain why you claim it did not involve change?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?