Originally posted by Doubting John

The belief that Jesus was fully man and fully God has never been shown to be consistently defined, explained or defended. E. P. Sanders, in The Historical Figure of Jesus, sums it up: “It lies beyond my meager abilities as an interpreter of dogmatic theology to explain how it is possible for one person to be 100 per cent human and 100 per cent divine, without either interfering with the other.” (p. 134).

This just reminds me of speaking to the African who bring out what I consider
to be a very important point:

Why would you want to eliminate the mystery?

Why would we want to eliminate the mystery, you ask?

Well, if the mystery of the supposed incarnation seems inherently and logically contradictory, or at the very least, incomprehensible, then maybe those of you who believe in it should re-evaluate the conclusions you have reached in the first place.

On the one hand, logic and reasoning lead us to question the incarnation, but on the other hand one particular view of history and of ancient Biblical documents leads you to believe in it. So which is more trustworthy? Present day reasoning, which I can engage in myself, or history, which is subject to so much interpretation? I prefer reasoning. [See the thread: "Can a Historical Religion Be Believed?" and "Preterism is an admission that Jesus and the early disciples were wrong"--here see my fourth post, I believe.]


Contrary to J.P. Holding's claim that what I offer is "dribble," even conservative scholars will admit the problems with Jesus claiming to be God.

C.F.D. Moule, a pillar of orthodoxy: “Any case for a high Christology that depended on the authenticity of the alleged claims of Jesus about himself, especially in the 4th Gospel, would be precarious.” The Origins of Christology, p. 136.

Another pillar of orthodoxy, Michael Ramsay: “Jesus did not claim deity for himself.” And, “the title ‘son of God’ need not of itself be of high significance, for in Jewish circles it might mean no more than the Messiah…and in popular Hellenism there were many sons of God, meaning holy inspired men.” Jesus and the Living Past, p. 39, 43.

Distinguished conservative James Dunn: “there was no real evidence in the earliest Jesus tradition of what could fairly be called a consciousness of divinity.” Christology in the Making, p. 60.

Brian Hebblewaite: “It is no longer possible to defend the divinity of Jesus by referring to the claims of Jesus.” The Incarnation, p. 74.

As far as the conceptual problems go, Christians will resort to the kenotic theory of the incarnation. It's a nice try at a save, but it just doesn't satisfy the logical mind--at all.

The kenotic theory says Jesus laid down some of his divine attributes when he became a man. Really? Is God without the attributes of God still God? How can a self-existent being cease to be self-existent? How can a finite being have infinite attributes?

Originally posted by Doubting John

Contrary to J.P. Holding's claim that what I offer is "dribble," even conservative scholars will admit the problems with Jesus claiming to be God.

Nothing like dribbles of soundbites as a reply, eh.

C.F.D. Moule, a pillar of orthodoxy: “Any case for a high Christology that depended on the authenticity of the alleged claims of Jesus about himself, especially in the 4th Gospel, would be precarious.” The Origins of Christology, p. 136.

And why is this the case? Did you plan on providing Moule's reaons for this claim, or would that be something you don't want to do because you can't defend it?

How about I quote Craig Blomberg on how reliable John is, and then you vanish?

Another pillar of orthodoxy, Michael Ramsay: “Jesus did not claim deity for himself.”

Why not? I guess asking you to post actual arguments and not just sound bites is out of the question. Or do I need to get these books myself and humiliate you again, DJ?

And, “the title ‘son of God’ need not of itself be of high significance, for in Jewish circles it might mean no more than the Messiah…and in popular Hellenism there were many sons of God, meaning holy inspired men.” Jesus and the Living Past, p. 39, 43.

Whoopee. "Son of God" isn't the main title to appeal to anyway. "Son of Man" is a far more important one, and Jesus' allusions to himself as divine Wisdom are even more important.

Distinguished conservative James Dunn: “there was no real evidence in the earliest Jesus tradition of what could fairly be called a consciousness of divinity.” Christology in the Making, p. 60.

Brian Hebblewaite: “It is no longer possible to defend the divinity of Jesus by referring to the claims of Jesus.” The Incarnation, p. 74.

More soundbites without arguments.

As far as the conceptual problems go, Christians will resort to the kenotic theory of the incarnation. It's a nice try at a save, but it just doesn't satisfy the logical mind--at all.

The kenotic theory says Jesus laid down some of his divine attributes when he became a man. Really? Is God without the attributes of God still God?

What a stupid question, DJ. You're confusing possessing the identity of deity with the concept of functioning as deity. Mohammed Ali did not cease to be a great boxer when he wasn't punching his opponents.

How can a self-existent being cease to be self-existent? How can a finite being have infinite attributes?

Here's a clue, DJ:

1) Hypostatic entities. Look it up in the other thread: I already told you this, and you ignored it.
2) The divine identity is not intrinsically associated with the incarnated body of Jesus. Hello?

Back to Trinity for an education, DJ.

Hold on Holding.

I let your post stand because it had no substance to it. But I'll respond anyway, just in case someone somewhere thinks it did.


JP:
What a stupid question, DJ. You're confusing possessing the identity of deity with the concept of functioning as deity. Mohammed Ali did not cease to be a great boxer when he wasn't punching his opponents.

Here's a parallel example. As a human I have human genes, so I cannot still be a human if I don't have human genes. Let's see, God is Spirit, omnipresent, self-existent, and so on. These attributes are not some functioning things that can be turned on and off, no matter how many times you call me stupid. They are what makes God, God. I could turn it around for you. Define God for me. Is God every where or not? Now define Jesus for me. Was he everywhere? Ooooops?



1) Hypostatic entities. Look it up in the other thread: I already told you this, and you ignored it.

Oh that's right "hypostatic" solves it all. Right. No worries. Just go out and have some more fun playing with your lego's.


2) The divine identity is not intrinsically associated with the incarnated body of Jesus. Hello?

Goodbye.

Then Jesus cannot be God in the flesh, either.

E. P. Sanders, in The Historical Figure of Jesus, sums it up nicely: “It lies beyond my meager abilities as an interpreter of dogmatic theology to explain how it is possible for one person to be 100 per cent human and 100 per cent divine, without either interfering with the other.” (p. 134).

I had this nagging feeling I forgot something a while ago, then I realized it was this thread.

Originally posted by Darth Executor

This dictionary definition sounds good to me:

Incorporeal consciousness.

Wow, forget years of philosophical study. What a waste. We could have just looked it up in the dictionary! Those dictionary writers know everything! <frantically flips dictionary pages to look up “origin of the universe”>

My problem with this definition is the word ‘incorporeal’. It means “Lacking material form or substance”. But that doesn’t tell you what spirit is. It only tells you what spirit is not. It only says that spirit is something other than the whole of everything we observe and experience. What that other thing actually is is left undefined. What’s more, we cannot even elicit some meaning by extrapolation because our observable evidence doesn’t offer any example of consciousness existing apart from matter.

I can’t say I’m surprised that this definition of spirit is consistent with the negative definitions of God often given. God is unlimited, incorporeal, invisible, undetectable, infallible—He has made man in His own image and yet He is everything that man is not (or perhaps everything man wishes he were).

Originally posted by salvationfound

This just reminds me of speaking to the African who bring out what I consider
to be a very important point:

Why would you want to eliminate the mystery?

Because the mystery could be smoke and mirrors.

Originally posted by Doubting John

I let your post stand because it had no substance to it. But I'll respond anyway, just in case someone somewhere thinks it did.

Ah, phooey. We know you just couldn't stand being soundly corrected and having it lay there.

Here's a parallel example. As a human I have human genes, so I cannot still be a human if I don't have human genes.

So what the heck does having human genes have to do with acting human, DJ? This is no "parallel" because God does not have genes. Furthermore:

Let's see, God is Spirit, omnipresent, self-existent, and so on. These attributes are not some functioning things that can be turned on and off, no matter how many times you call me stupid.

There attributes are things that a hypostasis can drop, no matter how stupid you may get in not knowing how a hypostasis operates. You just refuted your own point, though. God is spirit. Not a body. So if God takes on a body, that body is something added and by no means must retain the characteristics of God (a spirit) as part of that body for the person using that body to retain the divine identity.

Furthermore, no one is saying that omniscience was "turned off" by the hypostasis. I am saying it was IGNORED. Laid aside. Like it says in Phil. 2.

They are what makes God, God. I could turn it around for you. Define God for me. Is God every where or not? Now define Jesus for me. Was he everywhere? Ooooops?

Nope, because your Trinitarian theology is what ooooopsed to begin with. "God" is used as a proper name today, but theos in the NT is not a proper name; it is an abstract word like "deity". The Father is the only ontologically independent person of the Trinity -- did you manage to take any classes about this, DJ? About the difference between ontological equality and functional subordination? Or did you miss that one when you had the flu?

IOW Jesus does not NEED to "be everywhere" to be deity. His spiritual aspect had to be CAPABLE of "being everywhere" is all. Get it? Didn't think so.

Oh that's right "hypostatic" solves it all. Right. No worries. Just go out and have some more fun playing with your lego's.

Darned right it solves it all. By the way, in that sentence, what is the lego possessing?

Then Jesus cannot be God in the flesh, either.

Love the way you explained "why not" by quoting Sanders' admission that he personally doesn't know how to explain it. That's too bad. Maybe that'a a lesson for you -- express ideas outside your field and you get bonked.



So it boils down again to: DJ can't see the difference between having the IDENTITY of deity and FUNCTIONING AS deity. Stay tuned.

JP, Where did you learn how to draw? That image looks like a 6 yr old did it.

There attributes are things that a hypostasis can drop, no matter how stupid you may get in not knowing how a hypostasis operates. God is spirit. Not a body. So if God takes on a body, that body is something added and by no means must retain the characteristics of God (a spirit) as part of that body for the person using that body to retain the divine identity. The Father is the only ontologically independent person of the Trinity -- did you manage to take any classes about this, DJ? About the difference between ontological equality and functional subordination? Or did you miss that one when you had the flu? IOW Jesus does not NEED to "be everywhere" to be deity. His spiritual aspect had to be CAPABLE of "being everywhere" is all. Get it? Didn't think so. So it boils down again to: DJ can't see the difference between having the IDENTITY of deity and FUNCTIONING AS deity. Stay tuned.

Listen JP. You act as if all intelligent people should agree with you. It's not that I don't understand the Christian doctrine, it's that I'm asking questions about it. Even the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology says: "Admittedly, this doctrine leaves many metaphysical questions unanswered." ("Hypostatic Union").

Then look at the debate about it in the book Incarnation and Myth, edited by Michael Goulders (Eerdmans 1979) "Is the Doctrine of the Incarnation Logically Coherent?" John Hick's The Metaphor of God Incarnate is very forceful, but I suppose he's unintelligent too. There are several others, but you can start with these two books.

I've got better things to do today than to type up their arguments for you here. You'll just have to read them yourself, if you want to better understand the questions.

Originally posted by Doubting John

JP, Where did you learn how to draw? That image looks like a 6 yr old did it.

I'll share your views with the Hollywood animator who said I could have made it in that business if I had wanted to. But really, it's your fault if you look like something a 6 year old would draw.

Listen JP. You act as if all intelligent people should agree with you. It's not that I don't understand the Christian doctrine, it's that I'm asking questions about it. Even the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology says: "Admittedly, this doctrine leaves many metaphysical questions unanswered." ("Hypostatic Union").

What a glorious model of specificity. It's too bad you don't tell us what specific questions are left unanswered, and whether that includes the ones under discussion here. Did you ever learn the principle of prividing answers to what is actually said? You know, not:

X: "Where are my socks?"
DJ: "There are tornados in the soup."

Then look at the debate about it in the book Incarnation and Myth, edited by Michael Goulders (Eerdmans 1979) "Is the Doctrine of the Incarnation Logically Coherent?" John Hick's The Metaphor of God Incarnate is very forceful, but I suppose he's unintelligent too.

Seen 'em both. Hick spends more time begging the question that an incarnation is impossible than actually explaining why it is. Goulder is clueless though not as bad as Hick. How's that for a sound bite? Or can I just post some Thomas Morris and Richard Swinburne titles and turn you into a pumpkin?

I've got better things to do today than to type up their arguments for you here. You'll just have to read them yourself, if you want to better understand the questions.

A roundabout way of saying you don't want to be embarrassed when you place your favorite myths on the cutting board and lose your validation for your apostasy, eh?

So what "better things" do you have to do -- book promotion and sales, maybe?

It's obvious why you play these games, DJ -- details make you take too long and hard a look and now you are loathe to admit error.

Or, er -- wasn't that what you said about US?

I gotta tell you john these reasons are pretty feeble.

Originally posted by Doubting John

1) God is necessarily an uncreated being. Humans are essentially created beings. Therefore Jesus is both created and uncreated;

No, Jesus might be created, but the Logos is not. There is no problem here, just a confusion on your part.

2) God is necessarily omniscient—he knows everything. Human beings are not omniscient beings. Therefore, Jesus is both an omniscient and also not an omniscient being. But in the New Testament Jesus didn’t act omniscient. He said he didn’t know the time of his own return;

Not a problem. Christ willingly gave up his omniscience while incarnate. He emptied himself.

Actually, this comment about Christ makes for very strong evidence for the authenticity of the Gospel accounts BTW.

3) God is a morally perfect being, and as such could not be tempted to do wrong. Human beings however, can be tempted to do wrong, and are imperfect. Therefore, Jesus could not be tempted, nor do any wrong, and yet we’re told that he was tempted to do wrong.

How do you know God cannot be tempted ? Could you give me his phone number to prove you asked and so know this ? Does God not have free will ?

4) God is omnipresent, but Jesus as a human being, was not.

This is an argument ? You have definitely got to be kidding if you think this is a problem.

Jason

For those of you who think that these four conceptual problems are "not a problem at all" and can be easily dismissed with the wave of a hand, please note that one of your own Christian Philosophers agreed that these were indeed four big problems, and wrote a book length treatment about such things. After much debate and discussion over the nature of his claims in his book he left academia and is now giving lectures to big companies on motivation and salesmanship.

Why did he do this?

He went after the money, I suppose.

But he couldn't answer the continued criticisms of his claims in that book. So it was just easier to leave academia.

His name?

Thomas Morris.

His book, The Logic of God Incarnate.

Originally posted by Doubting John

For those of you who think that these four conceptual problems are "not a problem at all" and can be easily dismissed with the wave of a hand

It is not an issue of dismissing them with a wave of the hand.

Either your are confusing terms, ignoring a clear answer, making a claim to knowledge you simply lack, or just being oddly confused.

Jason

Originally posted by Doubting John

His name?

Thomas Morris.

His book, The Logic of God Incarnate.

And this appeal to authority is supposed to be convincing, is it? Frankly, I've never heard of the guy or his book so forgive me if I'm not bowled over by the mere mention of them.

Originally posted by Doubting John

Here then are four conceptual problems with an incarnate God: 1) God is necessarily an uncreated being. Humans are essentially created beings. Therefore Jesus is both created and uncreated;

False dichotomy; it is possible for something to be both created and uncreated, depending on the terms of the discussion. In the case of Christ he is uncreated before the incarnation. His body is created starting the incarnation but his body is not "him". His body is merely part of "him", not all of him. At worst, even with an extremely muddled and simplistic view of Jesus, part of him is uncreated and part of him is created.

2) God is necessarily omniscient—he knows everything. Human beings are not omniscient beings. Therefore, Jesus is both an omniscient and also not an omniscient being. But in the New Testament Jesus didn’t act omniscient. He said he didn’t know the time of his own return;

It doesn't logically follow that Human beings are not omniscient beings. This seems to be a category error. One would think that Jesus incarnation as a human proves that the human Jesus is omniscient. Logically, if the human Jesus is omniscient then at least one human is/was omniscient. Hence it isn't logical to say that Human beings are not omniscient without qualification.

Furthermore it pre-supposes that omniscience is an identifying quality of God. If Jesus is not omniscient and yet he is still God, it's logical to say that omnisceince is not an identifying quality of God without qualification.

3) God is a morally perfect being, and as such could not be tempted to do wrong. Human beings however, can be tempted to do wrong, and are imperfect. Therefore, Jesus could not be tempted, nor do any wrong, and yet we’re told that he was tempted to do wrong.

I don't think it logically follows that a morally perfect being can not be tempted to do wrong. If something cannot be tempted to do wrong, if there is not the possibility that it could do wrong if it so desired, then moral perfection is meaningless as applied to that thing. My coffee cannot be tempted to do wrong. Is my coffee morally perfect?

In addition I don't think that it logically follows that a tempted being is necessarily a morally imperfect one. Christianity is logically coherent in this when it proposes that Jesus was tempted and did not falter, hence manifesting perfect obedience. In Christianity at least, the temptation to sin is not sin. If it is not sin, it doesn not compromise moral perfection.

4) God is omnipresent, but Jesus as a human being, was not.

This functions according to a similar error of logic as objection 2 above, specifically with regard to God's identifying characteristic of omnipresence being subject to qualification.

fwiw
guaca.

Originally posted by Doubting John

But he couldn't answer the continued criticisms of his claims in that book. So it was just easier to leave academia.

You bet, Mr. Spin Doctor. He was especially scared of you, in fact, and even put Honest John Voodoo Dolls™ out on his front lawn.

And you took up pool because....? Why, now?

MM:

And this appeal to authority is supposed to be convincing, is it? Frankly, I've never heard of the guy or his book so forgive me if I'm not bowled over by the mere mention of them.

You are funny. In the first place, you haven't a clue what the fallacy of "appeal to authority" is, now do you? It's appealing to someone who isn't an authority in the specified field which he is being quoted, or appealing to a layman.

And then you respond by admitting you are ignorant about who Thomas Morris is?

You are funny. What a laugh--sorry.

And guacamole:

I think you assume that I simply don't know anything about the incarnation, and that if you can just teach me about it, that I would come to see and believe. I surely must not be informed about it, because if I was then I'd believe as you do.

And to me that's just ignorant--sorry.

Holding assumes the same thing, and that too is just ignorant--sorry.

Let's just start here by asking some simple questions. Was Jesus different than the 2nd person of the Trinity who existed before the creation of the universe? How was this Jesus different from him? As a full human being does this Jesus have the same thing in common with other human beings, that is, he had a body. And are human beings best defined theologically as "embodied souls", or soul-filled-bodies? And then this...was Jesus a person who had one will, one mind, and one temperment?

That's it. Now it's your turn. What do you think?

guacamole said:

At worst, even with an extremely muddled and simplistic view of Jesus, part of him is uncreated and part of him is created

You are dividing Jesus into parts? Hmmm. Really? Half man--half God?

guacamole said:

It doesn't logically follow that Human beings are not omniscient beings

.

I don't know because I'm not omniscient. And I don't know of anyone who is, nor is there any science that would show that it's possible.

But this is an ad hoc theory of yours. In order to defend the incarnation, which is what is in question here, you have to postulate that maybe, just maybe human beings are omniscient after all.

guacamole said:

I don't think it logically follows that a morally perfect being can not be tempted to do wrong.

If Jesus is God, and if God's character sets the standard for what is right, then God cannot go against his own character, anymore than someone could tempt you to attempt to jump to the moon. There's no temptation there, and yet we all know that humans are tempted every day.

And I took up pool and am very very good at it, because I no longer had to worry about figuring out these questions. I decided to have some fun instead.

Oh, and one more thing. I just now thought about MM again. It just makes me smile. When did you say you are going to graduate from High School, anyway?--sorry I couldn't resist.