And I said the Son was not normally seen.  There were encounters with the pre-incarnate Christ. 

So if you ask why this image could not have been seen instead of a human incarnation, the answer would be Christ came not only to be seen, but to suffer and die.

So to fulfill his entire mission he had to be fully man and fully God.  I didn't say that 100% man 100% God was the only conclusion, Simon, but I said it was (imo) the only logical conclusion.

Jun 15, 2012 -- 1:14PM, lucaspa wrote:

Jun 15, 2012 -- 7:14AM, Kwinters wrote:

If we list the attributes of for what it means to be fully human and what it means to be fully god, it is perfectly clear that one being cannot be both simultaneously. Thus we can reject all of Christian claims about Jesus that rely upon this assumption as invalid, since not even a god can overcome a logical contradiction.

Sorry, but here you are trying to get logic to trump data. That is unacceptable.  If we list the attributes of particle and attributes of wave, it is perfectly clear that one thing cannot be both simultaneously.  Yet electrons, photon, and even you are!  By the standards you laid out, we have to reject all the experiments showing electrons and photons to be waves (the double slit experiment, for instance) and all the experiments that show them to be particles (radioactive decay, for instance).  Are you prepared to do this?

So, if a photon or electron can overcome a logical contradiction, how hard can it be for God to do so?  

Actually, the fallacy is to think that logic dictates reality.  Logic can help us discern reality, but when reality and logic contradict, we go with reality every time.

Your comparison makes no sense.

Photons are both waves and particles. Being one does not preclude it being the other.

However, by definition man is (according to Christian theology) sinful.  God (according to the same theology) is sinless.

One cannot simultaneously be sinful and sinless since they are contradictions.

Jun 17, 2012 -- 12:22AM, simonzur wrote:

Jun 15, 2012 -- 7:14AM, Kwinters wrote:

If we list the attributes of for what it means to be fully human and what it means to be fully god, it is perfectly clear that one being cannot be both simultaneously. Thus we can reject all of Christian claims about Jesus that rely upon this assumption as invalid, since not even a god can overcome a logical contradiction.

Further, blind faith is no answer to such a logical contradiction, merely an avoidance of confronting the outcome of an investigation. 

I read the entire thread, and I was tempted to agree since I do not believe that Jesus was both fully human and fully God.  I was initially impressed with the quotation pertaining to omniscinece vs. finite knowledge.  Then I read post #26, and I must say that it wins the day.

However, you basic point is still true, although the way at which you arrive there is wrong.  I would concentrate instead on these facts.  God is fully God and a human is fully human, but Jesus is not considered as two separate beings.  Jesus, they claim, is one being with two natures, but the nature of a thing is inseparable from its being.  Therefore, the one being that is Jesus cannot be fully any two other things.  Rather, in his compostion he can only be partially each of those things.  If it were true that Jesus is God and Man, it could not be true that he both fully God and fully man.  He could be partly God and partly man, fully God and partly man, or fully man and partly God from the viewpoint of his singular being.  

A machine may be comprised of many parts, but it cannot both be fully the machine and fully one of those parts.  Rather, it is fully machine but only part any of its parts.

I do not read jlb's posts.

Even a being with two natures, as you suggest, cannot be a contradiction. Jesus cannot be sinful and sinless at the same time. One cannot be partially sinless or partially sinful.

A machine without one of its parts is not a machine, since it does not meet the conventional definition of that thing. For instance, a shoe without a sole is not a shoe.  And a shoe is never fully shoe - it is a construction from its parts. There is no 'shoe' or 'machine' or anything else seperate from its parts.

The Chariot

Milinda:  “I did not come, Sir, on foot, but on a chariot.”

Nagasena: “If you have come on a chariot, then please explain to me what a chariot is.  Is the pole the chariot?”

Milinda: “No, reverend Sir!”

Nagasena:  “Is then the axle the chariot?”

Milinda:  “No, reverend Sir!”

Nagasena:  “Is it then the wheels, or the framework, or the flag-staff, or the yoke, or the reins, or the goadstick?”

Milinda:  “No, reverend Sir!”

Nagasena:  “Then is it the combination of pole, axle, wheels, framework, flag-staff, yoke, reins, and goad?”

Milinda:  “No, reverend Sir!”

Nagasena:  “Then is this ‘chariot’ outside the combination of pole, axle, wheels, framework, flag-staff, yoke, reins, and goad?”

Milinda:  “No, reverend Sir!”

Nagasena:  “Then, ask as I may, I can discover no chariot at all.  Just a mere sound is this ‘chariot’. But what is the real chariot? Your Majesty has told a lie, has spoken a falsehood!  There really is no chariot!

Jun 17, 2012 -- 1:12PM, 57 wrote:

Jun 15, 2012 -- 7:14AM, Kwinters wrote:

If we list the attributes of for what it means to be fully human and what it means to be fully god, it is perfectly clear that one being cannot be both simultaneously. Thus we can reject all of Christian claims about Jesus that rely upon this assumption as invalid, since not even a god can overcome a logical contradiction.

Further, blind faith is no answer to such a logical contradiction, merely an avoidance of confronting the outcome of an investigation. 

I was reading through this  thread..trying to understand this so-called "logical contradiction". 

Jesus is God come in the flesh.  So how is it a contradiction? 

The Holy Spirit impregnated Mary and she birthed a child.   A human baby was born. Fully human. This baby was also God.  Fully God.  Its over obvious they had to be the same being simultaneously. 

This isn't a square triangle argument.   There is no logical contradiction in the post of KWinters. 

KWinters failed to post the contents of her so-called "investigation"...and skipped to an unsupported erroneous conclusion.  In fact KWinters has presented a "blind faith" argument..then asks us, in blind faith to accept her conclusion.

Hardly.

I mentioned omniscience: humans are not and gods (supposedly) are.

Another is sin: humans sin, gods (supposedly) do not.

A further attribute is perfection: humans are fallible, gods (supposedly) are perfect.

Do you have examples of Jesus being 100% human? When does he sin? When does he make mistakes? When is he ignorant?

jlb

If a man is mortal, and Jesus is 100% mortal, then he must cease on death.

Meanwhile he can't act independently of the laws of nature (eg perform miracles, magically appear and disappear) and he'll have needs and desires appropriate to a human - to breathe, eat, drink, excrete, find shelter, have social status, experience interpersonal sexual attraction, copulate, seek to generate, defend himself and so on.

Since that's 100% of him, there's nothing left over to be supernatural (assuming a satisfactory meaning can be found for that term at all).

Why isn't it as simple as that?