miknik5:  to be FIRST means that the ONE who is FIRST has left an impression, a mold if you will, which ALL are called to follow in..

Well, you know what Jesus said:  "The last shall be first and the first shall be last."  :)

nieciedo:  These symbols should be signposts as you say, not the destination in themselves.

And like any good Looney Tunes short, sometimes those signs have you blindly following the lane marker altered to make you smack into a wall.  :P

Kwinters:  Thus, it was a paradox when some scientist carefully analyzed bumblebees and concluded that according to the laws of physics they couldn’t fly.

Not to put a damper on a fun story, but it IS physically possible.  Bees and such use motions in their wings that create vortexes that provide lift.  Scientists only said it was impossible because they felt the way a bird or a plane flies is the only way.  Obviously, it isn't.  Hell, a helicopter doesn't fly like a plane either.

The flaw in his procedure is that our understanding of the laws of nature is always improving.  New knowledge often declare old to be false.

Ah, that's what I get for not scrolling all the way, LOL.  :P

miknik5:  If you would take the time to look at Genesis, the acount of creation...you will note that the lower creations, (of which we, as the higher creation, was supposed to have dominion over and subdue)

There is no real "higher" or "lower" in nature.  There is only who is "fitter" in a particular situation.  Strand a human (unarmed ... no cheating) in a deep forest or the ocean and you'll quickly find out just where they fit on the food web, for as the great Gary Larson (of "Far Side" fame) noted, we are kinda like Spam.

lucaspa:  So, if a photon or electron can overcome a logical contradiction

I think it's as much a logical contradiction as the bumblebee story.  In other words, we defined something too narrowly because we didn't know any better.  It's kinda like saying there are only males and females, when if you just open your eyes, there is a spectrum.

miknik5:  Why don't you read Haggai 2...I understand clearly what you are trying to say...but nonetheless, GOD blessed us and did for us what we could NEVER do for ourselves...

We're perfectly capable of getting ourselves killed to supposedly save someone else.  We're perfectly capable of teaching morals.  We're perfectly capable of living for the betterment of ourselves and our surroundings.

GOD will not compromise HIS PERFECT and HOLY IMAGE for man's ever swaying, never constant, foolish, forgetful and imperfect image

God refutes you after the Flood, where He changes His outlook, accepting us in a plot climax for what we are.  True, this all goes to hell later, but it's nice to see God be loving for a moment at any rate.

I can post for you colossians 1 and Hebrews 1 & 2 that show that CHRIST was the visible IMAGE of the invisible IMAGE/SPIRIT of GOD

That's not data.  It's some author's opinion.

Rgurley4:  1. Born of the "seed" of Mary a virgin, lived a perfect life as a man on on planet earth

If you say so.

MMarcoe:  And yet you invoke "logic" to support your point.

Well, there's logic and then there's "logic".  The latter relies heavily on just accepting premises and conclusions without doing the work in between.

Ed.W:  Fully human/fully divine serves primarily as an answer to particular heresy.

And I have noticed "heresy" is usually trotted out when it doesn't serve a particular interest.

Jesus--even though he worked miracles for example--was still fully human.

Name one miracle that other "human" prophets could not achieve.  There are other people who had magic copy/paste food, raise people from the dead, manipulate weather, heal the sick, know things that they shouldn't know, etc.  Even Pharoah's priests could make snakes.  Showing off does not make you divine.

Ed

Raising themselves from the dead.

Who raised Jesus?  Jesus or Yahweh?

It'd have to be Yahweh, wouldn't it?  Jesus was dead at the time.

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.

Jun 17, 2012 -- 4:22AM, Ed.W wrote:

Fully human/fully divine serves primarily as an answer to particular heresy.  There were big arguments over "how divine?" or where did the divine stop and the humanity start.

Jesus--even though he worked miracles for example--was still fully human.  Even though he got hungry and needed rest, he was still fully God.

It's just the only logical answer to the question, unless you created some kind of "monster".

The only answer to the question?  I don't think so.  How about Jesus was fully man, and though God worked miracles through him and dwelt within him by his Spirit, he himself was not God.  He was the image of God.  

That's a different answer that is fully supported by scripture.

Jun 17, 2012 -- 2:02AM, koolpoi wrote:

Aren't human limitations part of being human as opposed to being God?

Jun 17, 2012 -- 12:18PM, Blü wrote:

[“fully human” is] [h]aving a functioning human genome, without more.

It seems to me that we’re arbitrarily redefining the term “human” in these two arguments and not from a theological standpoint, which is the context of the statement fully God and fully human.

If the salvation of man entailed the re-capitulation of the creation of Adam, which is the case in Christian theology, then “being human” means having all of the characteristics proper to being human – possessing a human body, human soul, and human spirit (considered a part of the soul for most Christian theologies).

Christ had those; therefore, Christ was fully human.  That Christ’s human properties were augmented by the divine is irrelevant as far as Christian theology is concerned.

A cup of coffee, with chicory added to it, is still a cup of coffee.