Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Who raised Jesus from the dead?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    Yes, it is contradictory to have two whole perfect and distinct natures at the same time.
    I'm not sure two different natures in one person is logically impossible. However, if those two natures have mutually exclusive attributes, that would create a problem.

    Part of our "human" nature includes the concept of mortal, limited in power, capable of making mistakes, limited in knowledge.
    Part of the nature attributed to gods is immortal, omnipotent, perfect (unable to "make mistakes"), and omniscient

    It is hard to see how a single being can simultaneously encompass both of these "natures." Still - if Jesus (clearly a man who lived at a particular period of time) is asserted to also be "god" in the context of a monotheistic religion, then you have to resolve these conundra. That inevitably gives rise to the "hypostatic union" and the concept of a "trinity." These were the first real theological challenges facing the early Christian community - and the first theological arguments causing fragmentation in the community.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
      I'm not sure two different natures in one person is logically impossible. However, if those two natures have mutually exclusive attributes, that would create a problem.

      Part of our "human" nature includes the concept of mortal, limited in power, capable of making mistakes, limited in knowledge.
      Part of the nature attributed to gods is immortal, omnipotent, perfect (unable to "make mistakes"), and omniscient

      It is hard to see how a single being can simultaneously encompass both of these "natures." Still - if Jesus (clearly a man who lived at a particular period of time) is asserted to also be "god" in the context of a monotheistic religion, then you have to resolve these conundra. That inevitably gives rise to the "hypostatic union" and the concept of a "trinity." These were the first real theological challenges facing the early Christian community - and the first theological arguments causing fragmentation in the community.
      Yes, is a theological solution to the problem of how Jesus (a man) can also be divine in a staunchly monotheistic religion but it's not a logical one; this is why it's often referred to as a 'mystery'..
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Tassman View Post
        Yes, is a theological solution to the problem of how Jesus (a man) can also be divine in a staunchly monotheistic religion but it's not a logical one; this is why it's often referred to as a 'mystery'..
        The number of times I had to resort to "it's a mystery" in order to explain my beliefs is one of the reasons I no longer have them.
        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
          I'm not sure two different natures in one person is logically impossible. However, if those two natures have mutually exclusive attributes, that would create a problem.

          Part of our "human" nature includes the concept of mortal, limited in power, capable of making mistakes, limited in knowledge.
          Part of the nature attributed to gods is immortal, omnipotent, perfect (unable to "make mistakes"), and omniscient

          It is hard to see how a single being can simultaneously encompass both of these "natures." Still - if Jesus (clearly a man who lived at a particular period of time) is asserted to also be "god" in the context of a monotheistic religion, then you have to resolve these conundra. That inevitably gives rise to the "hypostatic union" and the concept of a "trinity." These were the first real theological challenges facing the early Christian community - and the first theological arguments causing fragmentation in the community.
          None of the bolded are necessary attributes of being a human. As I said in a previous post to Tassman, the reason why we're not omniscient isn't because we're humans, but because we're not God. The same applies to all of the other things you listed in what I bolded. None of them are a necessary part of a human nature. As such there is no problem with Jesus encompassing both natures, simply because the things you listed as being part of human nature, simply aren't.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
            None of the bolded are necessary attributes of being a human. As I said in a previous post to Tassman, the reason why we're not omniscient isn't because we're humans, but because we're not God. The same applies to all of the other things you listed in what I bolded. None of them are a necessary part of a human nature. As such there is no problem with Jesus encompassing both natures, simply because the things you listed as being part of human nature, simply aren't.
            Chrawnus - you're stretching. Our "nature" is all that makes us up as humans. Our brains are finite - they are incapable of omniscience. There is no way a "human being" can be omniscient without fundamentally changing who and what we are. I'm not sure how you are using "necessary," here - but if you are attempting to use it in the sense that the laws of mathematics and reason are "necessary" - then there is no "necessary" attribute of a human being. There is no reason we HAVE to exist or HAVE to exist as we are. If "our nature" is limited to aspects that are "necessary" then we have no nature at all - because there is nothing "necessary" about our humanity. We are what we have evolved to be.
            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              Chrawnus - you're stretching. Our "nature" is all that makes us up as humans. Our brains are finite - they are incapable of omniscience. There is no way a "human being" can be omniscient without fundamentally changing who and what we are.
              There is no stretching involved at all. Us not being omniscient isn't because of our humanity, but because we are created beings. Not being omniscient isn't an attribute in the first place, but the lack of an attribute, so there is no need for Christ to add "non-omniscience" to Himself to be considered a full-fledged human. The conflict you're imagining simply doesn't exist.

              Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              I'm not sure how you are using "necessary," here - but if you are attempting to use it in the sense that the laws of mathematics and reason are "necessary" - then there is no "necessary" attribute of a human being.
              I'm using it in the sense of "attributes that are required to be considered a human being".

              Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              There is no reason we HAVE to exist or HAVE to exist as we are. If "our nature" is limited to aspects that are "necessary" then we have no nature at all - because there is nothing "necessary" about our humanity. We are what we have evolved to be.
              This is simply begging the question in favor of atheism. If you're going to debate whether the hypostatic union makes sense you'll have to atleast hypothetically accept some tenets of Christianity as being true as part of the discussion, one of them being that humanity didn't arise as an accident (regardless of whether it happened through evolution or by special creation).

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                There is no stretching involved at all. Us not being omniscient isn't because of our humanity, but because we are created beings. Not being omniscient isn't an attribute in the first place, but the lack of an attribute, so there is no need for Christ to add "non-omniscience" to Himself to be considered a full-fledged human. The conflict you're imagining simply doesn't exist.
                Horse hockey. "Not being omniscient" is simply the negative expression of "finite cognition." It is not an absence - it is a description of a being that is fundamentally limited. That is our part of our nature.

                Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                I'm using it in the sense of "attributes that are required to be considered a human being".
                Then finite is one of them. Our physiology is another. Sentience is another. Bipedalism is another.

                Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                This is simply begging the question in favor of atheism. If you're going to debate whether the hypostatic union makes sense you'll have to atleast hypothetically accept some tenets of Christianity as being true as part of the discussion, one of them being that humanity didn't arise as an accident (regardless of whether it happened through evolution or by special creation).
                Which is begging the question in favor of Christianity...

                In other words - you have to assume some of the tenets of Christianity are true in order to show that the tenets of Christianity are true.

                On the other hand - I don't have to presume the tenets of anything to talk about the "nature" of a human being. I am one. I interact with my fellow human beings. I can fairly easily come up with a list of attributes that comprise our nature without appealing to ANY belief system related to gods.
                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  Horse hockey. "Not being omniscient" is simply the negative expression of "finite cognition." It is not an absence - it is a description of a being that is fundamentally limited. That is our part of our nature.
                  Are you for real? Of course it's an absence. It doesn't matter what way you phrase it, it's still the absence of an attribute. Calling "finite cognition" an attribute is like calling "not having limbs" an attribute. But in any case it doesn't matter, because finite cognition is part of our nature as created beings, not as humans. "Cognition" would be an example of an attribute, "finite cognition" would not. And even if I agreed as part of the discussion to treat "finite cognition" as an attribute I would still not agree that it's a necessary attribute of humanity. Pervasive, nearly ubiquitous even (except for one obvious exception), but not necessary.

                  Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  Then finite is one of them. Our physiology is another. Sentience is another. Bipedalism is another.
                  Well, the last one is obviously not a necessary trait at all, unless you want to argue that amputees without legs are not human. Finite in the sense of "having a localized body that extends in space" maybe. In the sense of being limited in power, wisdom or knowledge, hardly.


                  Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  Which is begging the question in favor of Christianity...

                  In other words - you have to assume some of the tenets of Christianity are true in order to show that the tenets of Christianity are true.

                  On the other hand - I don't have to presume the tenets of anything to talk about the "nature" of a human being. I am one. I interact with my fellow human beings. I can fairly easily come up with a list of attributes that comprise our nature without appealing to ANY belief system related to gods.
                  This literally doesn't make any sense at all. The discussion is not whether the hypostatic union is true or not, the discussion is whether or not it involves any contradictions. The very nature of the debate requires that some things are taken as true simply for the sake of the discussion.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                    Are you for real?
                    Yes

                    Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                    Of course it's an absence. It doesn't matter what way you phrase it, it's still the absence of an attribute. Calling "finite cognition" an attribute is like calling "not having limbs" an attribute.
                    No. If you are going to make this analogy - it is like noting that human limbs have a length that is approximately proportionate to the length of the human torso and head combined. Or it is analogous to noting that human limbs do not extend endlessly - they are finite. That is a description of an attribute we HAVE - not a description of an attribute we do NOT have. I am describing human sentience: it is limited.

                    Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                    But in any case it doesn't matter, because finite cognition is part of our nature as created beings, not as humans. "Cognition" would be an example of an attribute, "finite cognition" would not. And even if I agreed as part of the discussion to treat "finite cognition" as an attribute I would still not agree that it's a necessary attribute of humanity. Pervasive, nearly ubiquitous even (except for one obvious exception), but not necessary.

                    Well, the last one is obviously not a necessary trait at all, unless you want to argue that amputees without legs are not human. Finite in the sense of "having a localized body that extends in space" maybe. In the sense of being limited in power, wisdom or knowledge, hardly.
                    Then your definition of "human" includes attributes no human has ever had in the history of humanity, so you appear to be adding/removing attributes in order to make your case.

                    Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                    This literally doesn't make any sense at all. The discussion is not whether the hypostatic union is true or not, the discussion is whether or not it involves any contradictions. The very nature of the debate requires that some things are taken as true simply for the sake of the discussion.
                    So we have to assume Christian preconceptions are true in order to accept Christian tenets. And you see that as not "circular" or "begging the question?" Sorry, Chrawnus, but I think your reasoning has jumped the rails here. You are starting with your conclusions.
                    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                      None of the bolded are necessary attributes of being a human. As I said in a previous post to Tassman, the reason why we're not omniscient isn't because we're humans, but because we're not God. The same applies to all of the other things you listed in what I bolded. None of them are a necessary part of a human nature. As such there is no problem with Jesus encompassing both natures, simply because the things you listed as being part of human nature, simply aren't.
                      Yes, we're not omniscient "because we're not God", we're 'man'. One cannot logically be both omniscient (which is God) and not omniscient (which is man) at one and the same time. This is the logical dilemma of the Hypostatic Union.
                      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        Yes



                        No. If you are going to make this analogy - it is like noting that human limbs have a length that is approximately proportionate to the length of the human torso and head combined. Or it is analogous to noting that human limbs do not extend endlessly - they are finite. That is a description of an attribute we HAVE - not a description of an attribute we do NOT have. I am describing human sentience: it is limited.
                        As I already said, our sentience being limited is not a necessary quality of being a human, it just happens to be all-pervasive (with the notable exception of one individual, if you happen to believe the hypostatic union is correct). You claiming that it's a defining trait of a human is just question-begging. Sentience is a defining trait of a human, it being limited is not.

                        Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        Then your definition of "human" includes attributes no human has ever had in the history of humanity, so you appear to be adding/removing attributes in order to make your case.
                        There is absolutely nothing about what I've written so far that would give you justification to draw those conclusions. You're just making stuff up out of thin air.

                        Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        So we have to assume Christian preconceptions are true in order to accept Christian tenets. And you see that as not "circular" or "begging the question?" Sorry, Chrawnus, but I think your reasoning has jumped the rails here. You are starting with your conclusions.
                        No, it's not circular, because we're not discussing whether the doctrine of hypostatic union is true, we're discussing whether or not it's contradictory in the context of an otherwise Christian, or atleast theistic, worldview.

                        Of course the hypostatic union doesn't make sense if you're looking at it from an atheistic point of view, that's obvious to anyone with half a brain. In the first place the question of whether or not the hypostatic union is contradictory or not is completely irrelevant from an atheistic point of view.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          Yes, we're not omniscient "because we're not God", we're 'man'. One cannot logically be both omniscient (which is God) and not omniscient (which is man) at one and the same time. This is the logical dilemma of the Hypostatic Union.
                          As I already said, I don't accept "not omniscient" as a necessary trait of being human. Your logical dilemma exists solely because you're begging the question.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                            As I already said, our sentience being limited is not a necessary quality of being a human, it just happens to be all-pervasive (with the notable exception of one individual, if you happen to believe the hypostatic union is correct). You claiming that it's a defining trait of a human is just question-begging. Sentience is a defining trait of a human, it being limited is not.
                            And you appear to be arbitrarily excluding an attribute that every single human being who has ever lived has had, largely to be able to resolve your conundrum. Omniscience is infinite. The seat of human reason (the brain) is finite. You are postulating a possible attribute of humanity that humanity is incapable of achieving.

                            At this point, we each appear to see the other as "begging the question." Except I can point to human physiology to establish the absurdity of postulating an infinite capability in a finite entity. I'm not exactly sure how you can even begin to defend the position that finite knowledge and conscience is not a "necessary" part of humanity.

                            Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                            There is absolutely nothing about what I've written so far that would give you justification to draw those conclusions. You're just making stuff up out of thin air.
                            I think speculating that finite knowledge not being an attribute of the human person is what is being made up here, Chrawnus.

                            Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                            No, it's not circular, because we're not discussing whether the doctrine of hypostatic union is true, we're discussing whether or not it's contradictory in the context of an otherwise Christian, or atleast theistic, worldview.

                            Of course the hypostatic union doesn't make sense if you're looking at it from an atheistic point of view, that's obvious to anyone with half a brain. In the first place the question of whether or not the hypostatic union is contradictory or not is completely irrelevant from an atheistic point of view.
                            Chrawnus - you appear to be defining your way to an argument. Apparently you see me in the same light. I'm not sure there is an avenue for resolution here.
                            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                              The number of times I had to resort to "it's a mystery" in order to explain my beliefs is one of the reasons I no longer have them.
                              I doubt it. I'm sure it's a convenient excuse, however.
                              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                              sigpic
                              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                                As I already said, I don't accept "not omniscient" as a necessary trait of being human.
                                It is self-evident that divine attributes are not a human trait.

                                Your logical dilemma exists solely because you're begging the question.
                                The logical dilemma of Jesus being simultaneously ‘fully god’ and ‘fully man’ is only resolved by you at the expense of logic.
                                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                162 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                130 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                426 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,507 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X