Who raised Jesus from the dead?

[JonathanL]

OBP is correct. Ultimately the status of being omniscient (Divine) with not being omniscient (human)cannot be logically reconciled.

But not being omniscient has nothing to do with being human. You're imagining a contradiction where none exists. And if the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union cannot be logically reconciled it's not because there are contradictions involved, but because we don't have the capacity to understand it fully. "Not understandable to human reasoning" is not the same as "logically contradictory".

Believers can only understand as an article of faith how it can be true that Christ was at once both fully man and fully God. It is a revealed truth of the Church and does not conform to human logic. In short it is, for believers, a divine mystery to be accepted by faith.

There's no such thing as human logic. The hypostatic union might not conform to human understanding, but whether it conforms to logic is another question altogether. We don't have the knowledge necessary to say whether it conforms to logic or not. I'm saying that it hasn't been demonstrated yet that it doesn't conform to logic, while you're conjuring up imagined contradictions and wrongfully attributing them as being what the doctrine teaches (i.e that not being omniscient is a necessary quality of being human).

[Tassman]

But not being omniscient has nothing to do with being human. You're imagining a contradiction where none exists. And if the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union cannot be logically reconciled it's not because there are contradictions involved, but because we don't have the capacity to understand it fully. "Not understandable to human reasoning" is not the same as "logically contradictory".

What you are saying is that while an obvious contradiction exists, namely ‘two whole perfect and distinct natures inseparably joined together in one person’, it’s beyond human understanding. You, as a Christian can view this as a divine mystery beyond human understanding if you wish but I, as a mere mortal atheist, view it as a logical contradiction.

[JonathanL]

What you are saying is that while an obvious contradiction exists, namely ‘two whole perfect and distinct natures inseparably joined together in one person’, it’s beyond human understanding. You, as a Christian can view this as a divine mystery beyond human understanding if you wish but I, as a mere mortal atheist, view it as a logical contradiction.

You can view it as a logical contradiction if you wish, but that doesn't make it a logical contradiction. If you were able to show that it was a logical contradiction you would have done so by now.

[JimL]

What you are saying is that while an obvious contradiction exists, namely ‘two whole perfect and distinct natures inseparably joined together in one person’, it’s beyond human understanding. You, as a Christian can view this as a divine mystery beyond human understanding if you wish but I, as a mere mortal atheist, view it as a logical contradiction.

When it comes to faith based beliefs, their logic goes right out the window, Tass. Very difficult to reason with people who reject logic if it contradicts their beliefs.

[Tassman]

You can view it as a logical contradiction if you wish, but that doesn't make it a logical contradiction. If you were able to show that it was a logical contradiction you would have done so by now.

I have: ‘two whole perfect and distinct natures, god and man, inseparably joined together in one person’ is a logical contradiction.

When it comes to faith based beliefs, their logic goes right out the window, Tass. Very difficult to reason with people who reject logic if it contradicts their beliefs.

[JonathanL]

I have: ‘two whole perfect and distinct natures, god and man, inseparably joined together in one person’ is a logical contradiction.

No, that's just asserting that there is a logical contradiction, you haven't actually demonstrated that there's a logical contradiction. Where exactly does the contradiction lie?

[Tassman]

No, that's just asserting that there is a logical contradiction, you haven't actually demonstrated that there's a logical contradiction. Where exactly does the contradiction lie?

The obvious contradiction lies with the claim that two distinct natures, god and man, are inseparably joined together as one person. An entity cannot be both what it is and what it is not at the same time. It may be a necessary theological assertion, but it is not a logical one.

[JonathanL]

An entity cannot be both what it is and what it is not at the same time.

But the hypostatic union doesn't claim that Jesus is God and "not-God" at the same time. The hypostatic union is not saying that both A and not-A are true at the same time, it's saying that A has the qualities of both A and B at the same time. Not-A (or not-God in this situation) does not mean "anything that isn't A", but "lacking the qualities of A", or "not being A".

Nothing has been demonstrated about Jesus being human that prevents Him from having the qualities of being God, and conversely, nothing has been demonstrated about Jesus being God that prevents Him from having the qualities of being human. It has yet to be shown that even a single (necessary) quality of being human is the negation of a single (necessary) quality of being God.

[Tassman]

But the hypostatic union doesn't claim that Jesus is God and "not-God" at the same time. The hypostatic union is not saying that both A and not-A are true at the same time, it's saying that A has the qualities of both A and B at the same time. Not-A (or not-God in this situation) does not mean "anything that isn't A", but "lacking the qualities of A", or "not being A".

The hypostatic union is saying that two whole perfect and distinct natures, god and man, are inseparably joined together as one person at the same time. They both cannot be true at the same time. The one logically excludes the other, it is a logical contradiction.

[JonathanL]

The hypostatic union is saying that two whole perfect and distinct natures, god and man, are inseparably joined together as one person at the same time. They both cannot be true at the same time. The one logically excludes the other, it is a logical contradiction.

Simply repeating your assertion doesn't make it magically become true.

And the hypostatic union is not saying that whole perfect and distinct natures are inseparably joined together as one person, it's saying they're joined together in one person.

[Tassman]

And the hypostatic union is not saying that whole perfect and distinct natures are inseparably joined together as one person, it's saying they're joined together in one person.

This makes no difference to the meaning. “One person” cannot logically consist of two whole perfect and distinct natures at the same time.

[JonathanL]

This makes no difference to the meaning. “One person” cannot logically consist of two whole perfect and distinct natures at the same time.

You don't consist of a nature, you have a nature. A nature is simply a set of attributes that makes you what you are. And there is nothing contradictory in having attributes that encompasses two different natures at the same time.

[Tassman]

You don't consist of a nature, you have a nature. A nature is simply a set of attributes that makes you what you are. And there is nothing contradictory in having attributes that encompasses two different natures at the same time.

Yes, it is contradictory to have two whole perfect and distinct natures at the same time.

[JonathanL]

Yes, it is contradictory to have two whole perfect and distinct natures at the same time.

Still waiting for you to move from pure assertion to actually giving arguments for your claim.

[JimL]

Yes, it is contradictory to have two whole perfect and distinct natures at the same time.

Ya have to remember Tass, they believe human beings are a kind of hypostatic (soul/body) union themselves.