Who raised Jesus from the dead?

[JonathanL]

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.

I don't need to defend the position that finite knowledge and conscience is not a necessary part of humanity. You're the one with the burden of proof. And you haven't even gotten close to establishing your claim as true.

And in the first place we're not discussing if omniscience is a possible trait for someone who's just human, but whether it's necessary for Christ to add "finite knowledge" as one of his attributes to be fully human. Human physiology is completely irrelevant, because it's not going to be able to limit any infinite capabilities on Christ's divine side. Whatever limitations exists on the human side would be overridden by the divine side.

I think speculating that finite knowledge not being an attribute of the human person is what is being made up here, Chrawnus.

And some day you'll actually give a valid argument to support your claim that finite knowledge is an actual necessary attribute of the human person instead of just simply listing things about humans that don't actually establish your claim. All you've done is brought attention to the fact that most humans are finite in knowledge, you haven't shown that it's necessary to have finite knowledge to be human.

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 problem is not that I'm defining my way to an argument, the problem is that you don't even seem to realize what's being argued for. The question is not whether the hypostatic union is true or not, but whether it's contradictory in the context of a Christian worldview. I.e, you need to accept the Christian tenets as hypotheticals before we can even begin to have a fruitful discussion. And, going into specifics, the matter is not whether humans are limited, but whether or not these limitations are actually necessary to be considered fully human. I'm unconvinced that they are, and believe that if the unlimited capabilities of the divine "swallowed up" these limitations when the two natures joined together in one Person it wouldn't diminish Christ's humanity in the slightest.

[JonathanL]

It is self-evident that divine attributes are not a human trait.

Good thing I never made that claim then.

The logical dilemma of Jesus being simultaneously ‘fully god’ and ‘fully man’ is only resolved by you at the expense of logic.

There is no logical dilemma. You're simply using your own conceptions of what ‘fully god’ and ‘fully man’ means to force an imaginary contradiction.

[carpedm9587]

I don't need to defend the position that finite knowledge and conscience is not a necessary part of humanity. You're the one with the burden of proof. And you haven't even gotten close to establishing your claim as true.

To this I can only say wow. And how you believe you've shifted the burden of proof to me is beyond me. The nature of the human being is pretty evident. Your claim to be able to reconcile that nature with the nature of a god with opposing characteristics is at issue.

And in the first place we're not discussing if omniscience is a possible trait for someone who's just human, but whether it's necessary for Christ to add "finite knowledge" as one of his attributes to be fully human. Human physiology is completely irrelevant, because it's not going to be able to limit any infinite capabilities on Christ's divine side. Whatever limitations exists on the human side would be overridden by the divine side.

I which case the "overwritten" parts are simply not consistent with "being human."

And some day you'll actually give a valid argument to support your claim that finite knowledge is an actual necessary attribute of the human person instead of just simply listing things about humans that don't actually establish your claim. All you've done is brought attention to the fact that most humans are finite in knowledge, you haven't shown that it's necessary to have finite knowledge to be human.

I have noted that human physiology is finite and incapable of infinite knowledge. I'm not sure what else you want.

The problem is not that I'm defining my way to an argument, the problem is that you don't even seem to realize what's being argued for. The question is not whether the hypostatic union is true or not, but whether it's contradictory in the context of a Christian worldview. I.e, you need to accept the Christian tenets as hypotheticals before we can even begin to have a fruitful discussion. And, going into specifics, the matter is not whether humans are limited, but whether or not these limitations are actually necessary to be considered fully human. I'm unconvinced that they are, and believe that if the unlimited capabilities of the divine "swallowed up" these limitations when the two natures joined together in one Person it wouldn't diminish Christ's humanity in the slightest.

So I need to accept the tenets that make it possible to accept the tenets. And then you think that I'm the one arguing in circles?

Sorry, Chrawnus. No dice. If you want to believe these things on the basis of these arguments, go for it. I prefer to take me where the evidence and arguments take me.

I'll leave the last word to you.

[JonathanL]

To this I can only say wow. And how you believe you've shifted the burden of proof to me is beyond me. The nature of the human being is pretty evident. Your claim to be able to reconcile that nature with the nature of a god with opposing characteristics is at issue.

I haven't shifted the burden of proof. The burden has been squarely on your shoulders from the very beginning.

I which case the "overwritten" parts are simply not consistent with "being human."

More like the "overwritten" parts weren't necessary to be considered human in the first place.

I have noted that human physiology is finite and incapable of infinite knowledge. I'm not sure what else you want.

To acknowledge that we're not talking about someone who's solely human, but someone who's both human and divine. If the question was about someone who's just human you would have a point about human physiology being "finite and incapable of infinite knowledge", but we're not talking about such an individual, so human physiology being finite is irrelevant. Christ's omniscience doesn't derive from His human side, so His human physiology being "incapable of infinite knowledge" doesn't matter.

So I need to accept the tenets that make it possible to accept the tenets. And then you think that I'm the one arguing in circles?

The fact that you're not trolling but actually serious when you write this just makes this even more irritating. We're discussing whether a specific aspect of Christianity makes sense when viewed in the context of Christianity as a whole, not whether that specific aspect is actually true or not. Of course you're going to have to accept Christian tenets as true AS A HYPOTHETICAL if you're going to hope to have a fruitful discussion.

Sorry, Chrawnus. No dice. If you want to believe these things on the basis of these arguments, go for it. I prefer to take me where the evidence and arguments take me.

For the last time:

THE DISCUSSION IS NOT ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT YOU SHOULD BELIEVE IN THE HYPOSTATIC UNION, BUT WHETHER OR NOT IT'S CONTRADICTORY IN THE CONTEXT OF A CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW.

Maybe once you learn not to mischaracterize what the issue is actually about we can go on having a proper discussion.

[carpedm9587]

I haven't shifted the burden of proof. The burden has been squarely on your shoulders from the very beginning.

More like the "overwritten" parts weren't necessary to be considered human in the first place.

To acknowledge that we're not talking about someone who's solely human, but someone who's both human and divine. If the question was about someone who's just human you would have a point about human physiology being "finite and incapable of infinite knowledge", but we're not talking about such an individual, so human physiology being finite is irrelevant. Christ's omniscience doesn't derive from His human side, so His human physiology being "incapable of infinite knowledge" doesn't matter.

No - what we are talking about is a belief that a single being can be simultaneously "fully human" and "fully god." That implies containing the attributes of both - having the natures of both - fully. The belief is that neither nature is compromised - and both are fully present. But they contain mutually exclusive elements - hence the conflict.

The fact that you're not trolling but actually serious when you write this just makes this even more irritating. We're discussing whether a specific aspect of Christianity makes sense when viewed in the context of Christianity as a whole, not whether that specific aspect is actually true or not. Of course you're going to have to accept Christian tenets as true AS A HYPOTHETICAL if you're going to hope to have a fruitful discussion.

to this I can only say - "if you accept the tenets of Christianity - then you can accept the tenets of Christianity." I just don't think that says anything.

For the last time:

THE DISCUSSION IS NOT ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT YOU SHOULD BELIEVE IN THE HYPOSTATIC UNION, BUT WHETHER OR NOT IT'S CONTRADICTORY IN THE CONTEXT OF A CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW.

Maybe once you learn not to mischaracterize what the issue is actually about we can go on having a proper discussion.

Christian worldview or not, Chrawnus - when you have two mutually exclusive characteristics, to posit their simultaneous presence within a single being is an inherent contradiction. You can only get around that by excluding the conflicts from your definition of "human nature." I find that a very weak form of argumentation.

But thanks for acknowledging that I do not troll. That much is appreciated.

[Mountain Man]

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.

carpe claims that "lack of omniscience" is an essentially human characteristic. Angels lack omniscience. Therefore, according to carpe's reasoning, angels are essentially human.

For that matter, my pet cat also lacks omniscience, so...

[Mountain Man]

I think speculating that finite knowledge not being an attribute of the human person is what is being made up here, Chrawnus.

Suppose for the sake of argument that you suddenly acquired omniscience. Would you cease to be human? Why or why not?

[carpedm9587]

carpe claims that "lack of omniscience" is an essentially human characteristic. Angels lack omniscience. Therefore, according to carpe's reasoning, angels are essentially human.

For that matter, my pet cat also lacks omniscience, so...

Ummm... no...

Birds have two legs. That does not make birds human.

[carpedm9587]

Suppose for the sake of argument that you suddenly acquired omniscience. Would you cease to be human?

Yes

Why or why not?

Because an infinite amount of knowledge cannot be housed in a finite vessel - so my very physiology would have to be altered for such a thing to be possible. Indeed, since any physical thing within this universe is necessarily physically finite, I couldn't even be off this universe - or I couldn't be physical - or both.

[Mountain Man]

Ummm... no...

Birds have two legs. That does not make birds human.

Yeah, carpe, that's my point. Identifying characteristics that humans have does not prove that those characteristics are essential to being human.

[carpedm9587]

Yeah, carpe, that's my point. Identifying characteristics that humans have does not prove that those characteristics are essential to being human.

Then your logic escapes me. The nature of a being is the sum of its characteristics. No one characteristic alone DEFINES the being and I have not said as much. You appear to be arguing that, because other beings also have characteristic X, I am arguing they are also human. That is not the logic being used at all, so your rebuttal appears to be using faulty logic.

For a human - "finite knowledge" is part of our nature. It is not the entirety of our nature - but it is an intrinsic part of "being human." It is frankly an intrinsic part of ANY corporeal, sentient life form we know of in our universe.

[Mountain Man]

Yes



Because an infinite amount of knowledge cannot be housed in a finite vessel - so my very physiology would have to be altered for such a thing to be possible. Indeed, since any physical thing within this universe is necessarily physically finite, I couldn't even be off this universe - or I couldn't be physical - or both.

That rather begs the question, don't you think? Again, you're saying, "Humans have these certain qualities," and construing this to mean, "Therefore, these are essential human qualities."

(As a side note, as far as I'm aware, there is nothing in our physiology that prevents us from being omniscient.)

[carpedm9587]

That rather begs the question, don't you think? Again, you're saying, "Humans have these certain qualities," and construing this to mean, "Therefore, these are essential human qualities."

(As a side note, as far as I'm aware, there is nothing in our physiology that prevents us from being omniscient.)

No - it's not begging the question. And I see nothing odd about the observation that a finite vessel cannot contain an infinite commodity. If you think otherwise, then by all means provide examples of finite vessels containing an infinity.

[JonathanL]

No - what we are talking about is a belief that a single being can be simultaneously "fully human" and "fully god." That implies containing the attributes of both - having the natures of both - fully. The belief is that neither nature is compromised - and both are fully present. But they contain mutually exclusive elements - hence the conflict.

Well, that's just the thing isn't it? I don't believe "finite knowledge" is an essential part of being human. It has never been part of my criteria for what constitutes human nature.

to this I can only say - "if you accept the tenets of Christianity - then you can accept the tenets of Christianity." I just don't think that says anything.

Well, that's not what's being said at all. It's not "can you accept the tenets of Christianity if you accept the tenets of Christianity?", but rather "Does this small detail make sense set against the backdrop of Christianity as a whole?".

Christian worldview or not, Chrawnus - when you have two mutually exclusive characteristics, to posit their simultaneous presence within a single being is an inherent contradiction. You can only get around that by excluding the conflicts from your definition of "human nature." I find that a very weak form of argumentation.

Well, if I was "excluding the conflicts from [my] definition of 'human nature'" simply to get around issue you would have a point, but the thing is that I've never considered "finite knowledge" to be an essential part of human nature. It's not like I'm simply excluding it to win the argument.

[JonathanL]

No - it's not begging the question. And I see nothing odd about the observation that a finite vessel cannot contain an infinite commodity. If you think otherwise, then by all means provide examples of finite vessels containing an infinity.

It is begging the question, because it assumes that the mind must be bound by human physiology.