Koyaanisqatsi

Don't forget, diana, that Satan only tempted the "fully man" part of Jesus, while the "fully God" part of Jesus was off comparing the size of Mustard seeds.

Fact is, Matthew, there is nothing about any of this poorly conceived crap that can be reconciled, which is the entire point. It's supposed to cause cognitive dissonance. That's how you get brainwashed.

But, it's certainly been a "hoot" watching you try!

I'm out!

Matthew144

You are wrong in attributing your definition of fully to the christian definition. The christian definition is "possessing all the essential attributes of" your definition is "that thing and nothing else". If the word fully means what you say it means, you are right that this is logically impossible. However, as I have demonstrated, in ordinary language it can mean other something other than "that thing and nothing else".

You still have not demonstrated that you understand what a non-essential attribute is or what bearing it has on this discussion. Saying "of course I understand" is not the same.

Because you are experiencing difficulting determining the bearing of non-essential attributes on this discussion, let me put it another way: suppose God had all the essential attributes necessary to be God. Suppose he then acquired attributes non-essential to being God (Such as a reasonable soul and a physical body). Now suppose those attributes qualified him to be man (because they are the only attributes that theologically speaking are required to be a man).

If this is the case, where is the logical contradiction?

Theologically Speaking, once again, the only essential attributes of man that I see in scripture are physical body and reasonable soul. And there is nothing that says that God cannot inhabit this without making it something else.

Diana, you then say that the other attributes I listed sould have been absolute, and you are correct. I disagree with you that these are essential attributes of man in the bible. For example Adam was a man and he was sinless for a time.

[bold]Just because something is very common, like having 10 fingers and 10 toes, doesn't make it an essential attribute[/bold]. I know that distinction may seem like a trick but it is not, although in another discussion it might be. In this one, where we are assuming the biblical account, it is a good distinction to make.

[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: Matthew144 ]</p>

worldling

I acknowledged before that the hypostatic union does not violate the law of non-contradiction. It is possible, by carefully defining the essential and non-essential attributes of God and Man, to avoid that logical problem.

But it is a minor, and rather pedantic point. The problems with the whole crucifixion dog-and-pony show are far more serious than that. Look at Diana's temptation scenario. Look again at Koy's sacrifice-as-a-symbolic-gesture point. What about accepting substitutionary punishment for a crime which was committed against yourself? I could go on.

The question is not whether by semantic high-wire acts one can get away with saying the whole story is somehow, in a way, logically coherent. The question is how can a rational adult possibly justify believing such a preposterous and obviously post-hoc justification of a tall tale is true?

[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: worldling ]</p>

Mageth

Theologically Speaking, once again, the only essential attributes of man that I see in scripture are physical body and reasonable soul. And there is nothing that says that God cannot inhabit this without making it something else.

Now wait a minute. One of the "essential attributes of god" you listed was "able to do all things." No being limited to a physical body is able to do all things. That should be patently obvious. Now you might try saying god has a physical body but is not limited to it, in which case he is not "wholly human", as that would violate the "physical body" attribute. As far as that goes, no being limited to a physical body is able to know all things, either; there's just not enough storage space in your brain pan.

Mageth

I disagree with you that these are essential attributes of man in the bible. For example Adam was a man and he was sinless for a time.

Yes, but he was fallible, no? Was god, in giving Adam fallibility, giving him an "essential attribute" or not? Would infallibility have done just as well? Wouldn't god making Adam infallible throw a major wrench into god's big plan, if Adam couldn't sin?

diana

Good afternoon, Matthew.

I assume we agree that we are speaking within a theological construct? That is, this entire discussion assumes the biblical viewpoint of mankind and God.

Actually, Koy's point that it must be "that thing and nothing else" is part of yours, in that he refuses to acknowledge that a thing can have the essential attributes of one thing and simultaneously have the essential attributes of its opposite.

It is tautological for me to say it, but apparently you're missing the fact that it is the essential attributes of a thing that distinguishes it from its opposite. Do you not see this?

God is defined as everything that is essentially not man.

Would you define man as [all-powerful] or [not all-powerful] then?

We are defined by what we are as much as we are defined by what we are not. Just because is isn't a positive attribute we're arguing about doesn't mean it isn't an attribute.

For example, as a human, I am [non-desk]. I am also [non-rock], [non-wine], [non-paper], [non-hairpiece], [non-clothing], and [non-god].

I don't know if "contradiction" is the word I'd use, but I disagree with your statement that "they are the only attributes that theologically speaking are required to be a man." As I've already elaborated on.

So "sinful nature" (Ecc 7:20: "For [there is] not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not") isn't essential?

Matthew, I put some time and effort into my response. Please be kind enough to address each of my points individually, explaining why each of God's essential attributes, that you were kind enough to list, does not violate man's essential attributes.

To bring forth Adam as an example of sinlessness is possibly one of the feeblest arguments I've encountered for a spell. The reason behind the "ultimate sacrifice" was to save man from his sins--the assumption being that all men sin. Rumor has it even Adam eventually sinned.

Also, I can go for periods without sinning, myownself. I went five whole minutes today without doing a single evil thing or thinking a single wicked thought. So do I qualify for "sinless," because I was without sin for a time?

When I was born, I didn't sin for at least two years (far longer than Adam, from what I understand). So does that mean I can claim "sinlessness" because I was without sin for a time?

Come on.

I know. But thanks for reiterating.

d

[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: diana ]</p>

Matthew144

Hi, I hope everyone had a good weekend.

This is not the case at all. Besides the fact that this would mean that my desk is God because it is not man, scripture speaks about man being made in the image of God.


A non-essential attribute of man is that he is not all powerful, however, if Jesus was all powerful, this doesn't make him less of a man if he possesses all of the requirements of being a man.



This does make some sense, however, categories can overlap, and the point of this discussion is that God can overlap with man. By the way, psychologically speaking, that is a very interesting list you came up with : desk, rock, wine, paper, hairpiece, clothing, god.

The reason man is disqualified from being one or all of the first six is because an essential attribute of a thing is that it is inanimate and an essential attribute of being human is that one must possess a reasonable soul. Because these essentials conflict, if you are one you cannot be the other. Some of those categories do not conflict, however, it is logically possible for something to be rock and desk, for example, or paper and hairpiece.


This is where the "Just because something is very common, like having 10 fingers and 10 toes, doesn't make it an essential attribute" thing comes in. It is not an essential attribute of man to be sinful. On the more subtle fallibility question, I don't think fallibility is an essential attribute of man. The point of bringing up Adam was not that he never sinned, but only that he was human before he sinned. If being sinful was an essential attribute of being human, Adam would not have been human before he sinned. On eccl 7:20, it illustrates a non-essential attribute, sinfulness, that is pervasive. This does not make it an essential attribute any more than having 10 fingers and 10 toes is an essential attribute for being human.


On absolute holiness: a man can be absolutely holy and still be a man because absolute holiness does not conflict with any essential attribute of man such as unholiness.

On perfection: a man can be ultimately perfect and still be a man because perfection does not conflict with any essential attribute of man such as imperfection.

On completeness: same. no essential attribute of incompleteness (or, technically speaking, non-asceity).

On Knowing all things: same. no essential attribute of ignorance of some things.

On Able to do all things: same. no essential attribute of not able to do all things.

Mageth

On Able to do all things: same. no essential attribute of not able to do all things.

Once again, you gave "physical body" as an essential attribute of man. Having a physical body, man is not able to do all things. Or know all things. Period.

This is where the "Just because something is very common, like having 10 fingers and 10 toes, doesn't make it an essential attribute" thing comes in. It is not an essential attribute of man to be sinful. On the more subtle fallibility question, I don't think fallibility is an essential attribute of man.

Why not?

The point of bringing up Adam was not that he never sinned, but only that he was human before he sinned.

Yes, and fallible. If he was infallible, then he couldn't have sinned.

If being sinful was an essential attribute of being human, Adam would not have been human before he sinned.

We're addressing fallibility here. God created Adam, supposedly without sin but fallible (capable of sinning). If it was non-essential that Adam be fallible, why didn't god create Adam infallible? Then we wouldn't be in this fine mess we're in.

diana

Hi, Matthew!

I was wondering where you'd got off to. You must be a work poster.

Now that you bring it up, what does made in the image of God mean, anyway?

Matthew, throughout this thread, you've essentially used what I'm going to call Argument by Redefinition. "Fully" means exactly what everyone thinks it does (fully = 100%) when applied to anything in real life, but when used in your particular theological construct, it means "half" (essentially).

I'll buy the "God is fully god" and "Man is fully man" parts, but when you put them together in one person, as in "Jesus is fully god and fully man," then you have a basic math problem.

I keep thinking of a Yogi Berra line. Something about how "Success is 50% hard work, 50% perseverence, and 50% attitude." Your insistence that Jesus is 100% god and 100% man makes just as much (non)sense.

I've read your sandwich analogy, and I have to agree with Koy. 100% peanut butter plus 100% bread makes 100% sandwich. By the same token, no one claims to be "100% man and 100% soul," because within the theological construct, without our souls, we are not men; we are animals.

Soul, therefore, would be an essential attribute of man. (And he made man a living soul.)

So if Jesus was "fully" man, he had a soul that was an essential attribute of him. The manly soul would be capable of sin (as a matter of fact, would inherit sin, according to scripture); the godly soul would be incapable of sin.

Was Jesus capable of sin or was he incapable of sin? You have to choose one. He can't be both at the same time.

When we bring forth our ideas of manly "essential attributes" and stand ready to produce scripture to back up our claims, you argue that they aren't essential attributes but non-essential based entirely on the conclusion you've already reached that it's possible to marry god and man in one being.

Your argument is circular, Matthew. You can't start at the conclusion you want to reach, then discount all arguments against it as "non-essential" based on that conclusion.

"For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Non-essential to man, you say? OK. Then I'm sin-free. (I may make mistakes, but I don't sin.)

d

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: diana ]</p>

HelenM

Just a comment here - 'soul' in the Old Testament refers to the whole person.

Or so I was taught.

So, a reference to a soul in the OT is a reference to a whole person, not some immaterial part of him or her.

Helen