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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Tassmoron View Post
    Well the standard doctrine of the ‘hypostatic union’ states unequivocally that Jesus Christ is one Person, simultaneously fully God and fully man. If, as it seems, this is what you are arguing then your argument is a logical contradiction.
    Wikipedia has a reasonably clear and accurate explanation:

    Source: Wikipedia

    Hypostatic union (from the Greek: ὑπόστασις hypóstasis, "sediment, foundation, substance, subsistence") is a technical term in Christian theology employed in mainstream Christology to describe the union of Christ's humanity and divinity in one hypostasis, or individual existence.

    The most basic explanation for the hypostatic union is Jesus Christ being both God and man. He is both perfectly divine and perfectly human.

    The Athanasian Creed recognized this doctrine and affirmed its importance, stating that "He is God from the essence of the Father, begotten before time; and he is human from the essence of his mother, born in time; completely God, completely human, with a rational soul and human flesh; equal to the Father as regards divinity, less than the Father as regards humanity. Although he is God and human, yet Christ is not two, but one. He is one, however, not by his divinity being turned into flesh, but by God's taking humanity to himself. He is one, certainly not by the blending of his essence, but by the unity of his person. For just as one human is both rational soul and flesh, so too the one Christ is both God and human."

    https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Hypostatic_union

    © Copyright Original Source


    Stop thinking of Jesus' two natures in a quantitative sense, as if he were a 24oz bottle in which 24oz of humanity and 24oz of divinity are both poured in. That's what's getting you confused.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      Wikipedia has a reasonably clear and accurate explanation:

      Source: Wikipedia

      Hypostatic union (from the Greek: ὑπόστασις hypóstasis, "sediment, foundation, substance, subsistence") is a technical term in Christian theology employed in mainstream Christology to describe the union of Christ's humanity and divinity in one hypostasis, or individual existence.

      The most basic explanation for the hypostatic union is Jesus Christ being both God and man. He is both perfectly divine and perfectly human.

      The Athanasian Creed recognized this doctrine and affirmed its importance, stating that "He is God from the essence of the Father, begotten before time; and he is human from the essence of his mother, born in time; completely God, completely human, with a rational soul and human flesh; equal to the Father as regards divinity, less than the Father as regards humanity. Although he is God and human, yet Christ is not two, but one. He is one, however, not by his divinity being turned into flesh, but by God's taking humanity to himself. He is one, certainly not by the blending of his essence, but by the unity of his person. For just as one human is both rational soul and flesh, so too the one Christ is both God and human."

      https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Hypostatic_union

      © Copyright Original Source


      Stop thinking of Jesus' two natures in a quantitative sense, as if he were a 24oz bottle in which 24oz of humanity and 24oz of divinity are both poured in. That's what's getting you confused.
      So Jesus is like a certs, two, two, two mints in one!

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        So Jesus is like a certs, two, two, two mints in one!
        or maybe like you are a human being AND a jackass.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          or maybe like you are a human being AND a jackass.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            Stop thinking of Jesus' two natures in a quantitative sense, as if he were a 24oz bottle in which 24oz of humanity and 24oz of divinity are both poured in. That's what's getting you confused.
            I prefer Kierkegaard's approach to the hypostatic union in his Philosophical Fragments: “The dual nature of Christ is explored as a paradox, as "the ultimate paradox", because God, understood as a perfectly good, perfectly wise, perfectly powerful being, fully became a human, in the Christian understanding of the term: burdened by sin, limited in goodness, knowledge, and understanding. This paradox can only be resolved, Kierkegaard believed, by a leap of faith away from one's understanding and reason towards belief in God; thus the paradox of the hypostatic union was crucial to an abiding faith in the Christian God. As the precise nature of this union is held to defy finite human comprehension, the hypostatic union is also referred to by the alternative term "mystical union".

            In short, the double nature of Christ is an article of faith.
            “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


            • #36
              Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              I prefer Kierkegaard's approach to the hypostatic union in his Philosophical Fragments: “The dual nature of Christ is explored as a paradox, as "the ultimate paradox", because God, understood as a perfectly good, perfectly wise, perfectly powerful being, fully became a human, in the Christian understanding of the term: burdened by sin, limited in goodness, knowledge, and understanding. This paradox can only be resolved, Kierkegaard believed, by a leap of faith away from one's understanding and reason towards belief in God; thus the paradox of the hypostatic union was crucial to an abiding faith in the Christian God. As the precise nature of this union is held to defy finite human comprehension, the hypostatic union is also referred to by the alternative term "mystical union".

              In short, the double nature of Christ is an article of faith.
              Sort of like their faith in the co-existence of an omniscient creator and a free wiled creationl. Reason and logic go out the window.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Tassmoron View Post
                I prefer Kierkegaard's approach to the hypostatic union in his Philosophical Fragments: “The dual nature of Christ is explored as a paradox, as "the ultimate paradox", because God, understood as a perfectly good, perfectly wise, perfectly powerful being, fully became a human, in the Christian understanding of the term: burdened by sin, limited in goodness, knowledge, and understanding. This paradox can only be resolved, Kierkegaard believed, by a leap of faith away from one's understanding and reason towards belief in God; thus the paradox of the hypostatic union was crucial to an abiding faith in the Christian God. As the precise nature of this union is held to defy finite human comprehension, the hypostatic union is also referred to by the alternative term "mystical union".

                In short, the double nature of Christ is an article of faith.
                None of that contradicts anything I've said. I think it's safe to say that you misunderstand why Kierkegaard considered this a paradox, and it's not because he thought Jesus is a 200% being. It's because we humans lack the capacity to understand the exact mechanism that allows a human and divine nature to coexist in a single person.

                However, I disagree with this presentation of Christian faith. God never asks us to abandon our reason when we approach him. Biblical faith is never irrational.
                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  None of that contradicts anything I've said. I think it's safe to say that you misunderstand why Kierkegaard considered this a paradox, and it's not because he thought Jesus is a 200% being. It's because we humans lack the capacity to understand the exact mechanism that allows a human and divine nature to coexist in a single person.

                  However, I disagree with this presentation of Christian faith. God never asks us to abandon our reason when we approach him. Biblical faith is never irrational.
                  God never asks you anything, you abandon reason all by yourself. As a matter of fact, if there was a god he would probably be ashamed for you, not using the brain he provided you with.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by JimLamenbrain View Post
                    God never asks you anything, you abandon reason all by yourself. As a matter of fact, if there was a god he would probably be ashamed for you, not using the brain he provided you with.
                    You will be judged by your own words.
                    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                    Than a fool in the eyes of God


                    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      None of that contradicts anything I've said. I think it's safe to say that you misunderstand why Kierkegaard considered this a paradox, and it's not because he thought Jesus is a 200% being. It's because we humans lack the capacity to understand the exact mechanism that allows a human and divine nature to coexist in a single person.
                      We "lack the capacity to understand the exact mechanism that allows a human and divine nature to coexist in a single person", because it is an incoherent notion. It can only be understood as a divine mystery and believed as an article of faith.

                      However, I disagree with this presentation of Christian faith. God never asks us to abandon our reason when we approach him. Biblical faith is never irrationa
                      Belief in an invisible all-powerful deity is in itself "irrational", not to mention all the spiritual baggage that goes with it.
                      “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


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                        I prefer Kierkegaard's approach to the hypostatic union in his Philosophical Fragments: “The dual nature of Christ is explored as a paradox, as "the ultimate paradox", because God, understood as a perfectly good, perfectly wise, perfectly powerful being, fully became a human, in the Christian understanding of the term: burdened by sin, limited in goodness, knowledge, and understanding. This paradox can only be resolved, Kierkegaard believed, by a leap of faith away from one's understanding and reason towards belief in God; thus the paradox of the hypostatic union was crucial to an abiding faith in the Christian God. As the precise nature of this union is held to defy finite human comprehension, the hypostatic union is also referred to by the alternative term "mystical union".

                        In short, the double nature of Christ is an article of faith.
                        Depending on what Kierkegaard meant by the bolded I'm not sure I'd agree with his assessment of what the Christian understanding of what it means to be a human. Humans are marred by sin, but it's not part of our nature proper, so for Jesus to be fully human he doesn't need to be "burdened by sin". And being limited in goodness is only applicable to someone limited in power, which Jesus obviously wasn't, seeing as He was God incarnate.

                        There are some qualities, or attributes that we humans have simply by virtue of being human. But there are other qualities, or, more accurately, limitations that that we have, not because we are humans, but because we are created, finite beings. In order for Jesus to be fully human He only needs to share in the qualities of the former category, not the limitations of the latter. The trick is to figure out which qualities or limitations belong in which category.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Tassmoron View Post
                          We "lack the capacity to understand the exact mechanism that allows a human and divine nature to coexist in a single person", because it is an incoherent notion.
                          Asserted but not proven. It is not incoherent to state that Jesus is "fully human" in the sense that he has every essential human quality, and "fully divine" in the sense that he has every essential divine quality.

                          Originally posted by Tassmoron View Post
                          Belief in an invisible all-powerful deity is in itself "irrational"...
                          Asserted but not proven. Belief in God is no more itrational than believing that my senses allow me to accurately perceive the universe around me.
                          Last edited by Mountain Man; 01-13-2019, 09:37 AM.
                          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                          Than a fool in the eyes of God


                          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                            Depending on what Kierkegaard meant by the bolded I'm not sure I'd agree with his assessment of what the Christian understanding of what it means to be a human. Humans are marred by sin, but it's not part of our nature proper, so for Jesus to be fully human he doesn't need to be "burdened by sin".
                            Jesus was tempted by sin, so perhaps that's what Kierkegaard means?
                            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                            Than a fool in the eyes of God


                            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              Jesus was tempted by sin, so perhaps that's what Kierkegaard means?
                              Sure, I could assent to that, as long as "tempted by sin" is understood as "tempted to sin by outside influences", and not "tempted by His own inclinations". Obviously Jesus never felt the slightest desire to sin even though He was put in situations that would have made any other person succumb to temptation.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                                Sure, I could assent to that, as long as "tempted by sin" is understood as "tempted to sin by outside influences", and not "tempted by His own inclinations". Obviously Jesus never felt the slightest desire to sin even though He was put in situations that would have made any other person succumb to temptation.
                                Yes. "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin."
                                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                14 responses
                                43 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                411 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  
                                Working...
                                X