Murad wrote:Hey theopoesis, sorry for the late reply, i dont follow posts anymore(too many annoying emails
)
I do suppose it is easier to make initial posts when you copy and paste them from a website like this one:
http://islamic-replies.ucoz.com/2/Hypostatic_union.html
It is much more difficult to come up with your own responses to a post, isn't it? What do you do when you realize your pre-made apologetics arguments are not cutting it? You hide for weeks, then you post a flimsy rebuttal. I'm flagging your OP by the way. Here's my response:
Murad wrote:
theopoesis wrote:
Murad wrote:Point 1:
It would be really surprising if i said this doctrine has no source, because it really doesn't. There isn't a single verse in the ENTIRE Bible which explicitly says or implies that Jesus simultaneously had 2 natures.
So why is such a baseless doctrine preached within Christendom ?
There is not a single verse in the Bible that explicitly states that there is a hypostatic union
The same goes for the doctrine of the 'trinity', but vague verses are interpreted to create certain doctrines in order to annul self contradictory biblical verses.
Do you agree? Why/Why not?
Disagree. But I think a discussion on the Trinity is tangential. I responded to your other post about the Trinity, and I started my own thread about the logic of the Trinity. Perhaps we could redirect there.
Murad wrote:
theopoesis wrote:
, but the entire NT as a whole can be interpreted in a way that makes the hypostatic union clear.
I vigerously disagree with 'clear', could you justify this claim?
I did justify the claim in the sentences immediately following this one. We'll get there.
Murad wrote:
theopoesis wrote:
Augmented with logic, the hypostatic union can stand.
The hypostatic union is no more 'logical' than the 'trinity', both man-made doctrines don't make sense(rationally atleast) and are regarded as 'holy mysteries' by the Church.
I wonder what approach you have that makes the hypostatic union 'logical'?
To answer this question, I will redirect you to this thread:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=15395
In brief summary: For the idea of a person to have any meaning, it must be differentiated from "being" and "nature." Otherwise it is a redundant and vacuous term. Christianity differentiates person and being so that each are separate. One being may be three persons, and two natures one person. This was the origin of the idea of personhood in the first place. The Cappadocians developed the modern idea of the person. Therefore, to make the Trinity and hypostatic union
illogical you must either reject the idea of persons altogether or substitute your own theory of personhood. As you have done neither, I dismiss your claims that the hypostatic union is "man-made" and "doesn't make sense" as rhetoric and nothing more.
Murad wrote:
theopoesis wrote:
Jesus is clearly identified as divine in John 1, Philippians 2:6, Colossians 1:15-20, and Revelation 1:8, 21:6, and 22:13 (among many other passages). Jesus is clearly identified as a human in Hebrews 2:17, 1 Timothy 2:5, John 1:14, and Luke 24:39 (among many other passages). Throughout the NT Jesus is depicted as a single person, and not two. Therefore, it is no major leap to arrive at the hypostatic union.
First of all, i absolutely agree, for every biblical verse that shows Jesus as 'divine', there are about 3 verses that show Jesus was no more than human.
If you agree with this, why is it such a leap to think Jesus was divine and human?
Murad wrote:
Secondly, i disagree with your comment: " it is no major leap to arrive at the hypostatic union". The initial concept is illogical(that Jesus is God & Human simultaneously), then making that concept into a Church doctrine is beyond words to me. But im not here to debate subjective opinion, so ill stick to the topic & debate objectively.
You have not yet established that it is illogical. You have only shown that you have distaste for the particular doctrine. IF you are not here to debate subjective opinion, why continue to present it?
Murad wrote:
theopoesis wrote:
Further, even if you reject these verses altogether, you have the history of theology to deal with.
Im going to take the Bible as authoritative in this debate, so i wont reject a single biblical verse.
Then if Jesus is said to be divine and to be human, and if you are granting the authority of the Bible, what is left to debate?
Murad wrote:
theopoesis wrote:
Here are five examples (among many) as to why the hypostatic union is logical in accordance with Biblical ideas:
First of all, they are
Subjective Beliefs. I dont accept these as 'examples', i take an 'example' as something that is represented with
objective evidence and/or
sound logic. But ill play along here.
All knowledge is subjective, and I have argued this elsewhere dozens of times. Your labelling these ideas as subjective is simply polemic. I present them as ideas that
are logical, and that through their own inner logic defend the idea of the hypostatic union. If you do not accept these examples, I expect you to demonstrate why they are illogical.
(Keep in mind that deductive logic build upon axioms, so you must grant the axioms to show that an argument then fails to proceed
logically through subsequent arguments. IF you reject the axiom, you do not necessarily prove something is illogical. It could have been completely logical, and yet based on a false assumption. That is something quite different.
Since we have no direct way to establish or reject many premises about a God, I find no universally definitive reason to select one axiom over another.
Murad wrote:
theopoesis wrote:
(1) Anselm of Canterbury: The savior had to be a God-man because mankind had the obligation to pay the debt, but only God could pay the debt. If Jesus was only God, he could not pay the debt because he lacked the responsibility, but if he was only a human he could not pay the debt because he lacked the ability. Therefore, he must be a single person who is both God and man.
'God-man' ? Hercules was also a 'God-man', along with Achilles in Greek & Roman mythology. You know what we call these?
DemiGods, the sort that the Pagan Emperor Saint Constantine worshipped.
Athanaisus of Alexandria argued quite conclusively that Jesus Christ could not be a demi-God because God is a simple being, and therefore Jesus received all of God's divinity or none of God's divinity. But not part of the divinity.
Your reference to Constantine is polemic. You have lots of polemic, but little actual argument on your side. Bringing in Hercules and Constantine is a red herring.
Murad wrote:
Back to the topic, i find it absolutely ridiculous that an Al-Mighty God cannot give himself "responsibility" that a mere human has. Also, who has the authority to determine whether God lacks 'responsibility'? Also, what is 'responsibility'?
You are equivocating. Responsibility has two meanings here: (1) the quality or state of being morally responsible; (2) something for which one is responsible; burden.
I was using the word according to definition #2. In other words, only humans had the obligation to pay for sin because only humans sinned. Can God sin, Murad? If he sins, is he still God? God cannot give himself the responsibility/obligation to pay for sin because God cannot sin! But if God takes on human nature, and humans are obligated to pay for sin, then the God-man can pay the debt.
As for determining who has responsibility, only God has that authority. He has declared who is responsible in the Scriptures. "The wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23) for example. Since you granted the authority of the Scriptures, I don't see the problem.
Murad wrote:
theopoesis wrote:
(2) Bonaventure: Jesus is called the Alpha and Omega, and this is often make into a philosophical statement that he is eternal. But a more appropriate understanding is that he was first and last. He was first as the pre-existent being through whom all things were created. He was last because he was himself the crowning creation and perfect human being, Jesus Christ. Apart from the incarnation, or the joining of the creative Principle with the perfect creation, Jesus (and God) could not appropriately be called the alpha and omega.
I dont get the interpretation, how is being the 'perfect human being' make you you 'omega'(last) ? Doesn't this mean all the prior creations were also 'perfect' ?
Being perfect does not make you the "last." He was last because he was the "crowning creation", that is, the last most complete and final work of creation. The definition of crowning is, after all, "to bring to a successful conclusion." Jesus initiated creation as the word, and completed creation as the Word made flesh.
Murad wrote:
theopoesis wrote:
(3) Athanasius: Mankind had been created in the image of God, but that image was destroyed (or at least damaged) through sin. In order to restore the image in mankind, God himself had to take on human nature to purify it and restore the image to it. Jesus "must" be fully man and fully God to recreate this image of God in humanity.
I bolded out the bit where i require you to provide biblical evidence.
And i put apostrophes around the word that expresses a blatant logical fallcy.
Genesis 1:26 Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.
Colossians 3:10 put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator
So we were created in the image of the invisible God. Salvation calls us to put on a new self renewed in the image of its creator. The implication (as many through church history have interpreted it) is that sin damaged the image and likeness of God. This makes sense, because God is not sinful so our sinfulness cannot be part of the image. Christ was the perfect image of God who restored us:
Colossians 1:5 He is the image of the invisible God
That is why elsewhere the NT says we are to "clothe ourselves with Christ" (Galatians 3:26-29).
The very language of 2 Corinthians 5:17 was interpreted as meaning Christ restored the image of God to us:
2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation: the old has gone, the new has come!
As for the logical fallacy accusation: Perhaps you could name which fallacy I committed? That is usually helpful in a debate, rather than simply labeling a point you disagree with a "logical fallacy."
Murad wrote:
theopoesis wrote:
(4) Irenaeus: Only a God-man could fulfill the Promises made in the Old Testament. How could David have a descendent whose reign would never end if the eternal one Himself did not become David's descendent? Jesus must be God and man to fulfill the promises.
Wow, just wow.
Firstly, id like biblical justification for the bolded bits.
Again, you use words like "wow" as empty rhetoric. Do you have any substantive arguments?
2 Samuel 7 is one place where the idea comes from. God promises that an offspring (singular) of David will have a throne established forever. Who will have an eternal throne, but an eternal king?
Genesis 12:3 says that all peoples on earth will be blessed through Abram and his descendents. In what way can all people be blessed? Irenaeus says through the blessing of salvation offered through Christ.
Murad wrote:
Secondly, no Jew expects the Messiah to "live forever", and the OT doesn't say the Messiah would be eternal.
You are forgetting the first century Jews who wrote the New Testament, Murad. They quite clearly expected the Messiah to live forever. This is also represented in John 12:34 as an objection against Jesus: "We have heard from the law that the Christ will remain forever, so how can you say, 'The Son of Man must be lifted up'?" Some Jews thought the Messiah would live forever.
I already offered one interpretation of 2 Samuel 7 from the OT. Here are some others:
The OT has many verses which can be interpreted as saying the messiah would be eternal, but I admit most have alternate interpretations. Psalm 61:7 is one that is often taken to mean the Messiah will reign forever, but other interpretations exist for this (and for all other verses I could put forward). It's impossible to choose an interpretation without an outside bias.
Murad wrote:
Thirdly, you just pointed out an unfulfilled prophecy, who exactly did Jesus "Reign" over? He was rejected by the people he was sent to. So please, please show me without any verbal gymnastics on how Jesus "reigned" and brought back the Jewish Golden Age.
So first you deny that the prophecy existed, and then you claim that the prophecy was not fulfilled?
Jesus reigns from heaven sitting at the right hand of God. (see Psalm 61:7).
I never said Jesus was to bring back the Jewish Golden Age. The NT clearly states this was a false expectation, and you agreed to grant the authority of the NT in this thread.
Murad wrote:
theopoesis wrote:
(5) Gregory of Nazianzus: Jesus made a new human nature possible. When the divine nature joined hypostatically with the human nature, the human was purified and elevated. "That which he did not assume, he did not redeem" so a complete human nature must have been assumed in order for a complete redemption to be possible.
Is the bolded part a baseless assumption? Or can you back it up with evidence?
Evidence from the Scriptures, which is evidence in this thread: 2 Corinthians 5:17, Galatians 3:26-27, Colossians 3:9-10, Ephesians 4:22-24, Romans 8:28-29, 1 Corinthians 15:49 (you get the point, Murad?) This is one of the most common themes in the NT.
Evidence from Logic:
(1) Humans are sinful and unable to turn toward God
(2) A new, better nature requires a turn toward God, the source of goodness
(3) Humans cannot turn themselves, and so cannot be the source of a better nature
(4) Something else must be the source of the better nature
Murad wrote:
theopoesis wrote:
Of course, what I reduced to five sets of 1-2 sentences is actually five treatises from antiquity, each with many pages and arguments.
Ok, quote me the
best arguements, that will make this debate alot quicker.
I just summarized five of the best arguments. It takes sometimes at much as 10 pages to make the argument. I'm not typing all of that up. As I suggest below, if you really want to "analyze" I can suggest quite a few good books for you to check out of the local library.
Murad wrote:
theopoesis wrote:
To call the hypostatic union "baseless" is nothing but polemic and ignorance of the history of theology.
I stand by my words, furthermore, ignorance is expressed more clearly in acceptance than it is in denial.
according to Merriam Webster, ignorance is "the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness."
I have shown five arguments that demonstrates that I have knowledge, an education, and awareness of the basis for the hypostatic union. You, Murad, demonstrated no knowledge, education, or awareness of these arguments (or else you intentionally deceived by not referencing them).
by definition You are ignorant.
By definition I am not.
Your response is silly, really. It the equivalent of a child on the playground saying "no I'm not, you are" and pointing a finger.
I now see that you lack the integrity to admit that it is not "baseless" even though I have demonstrated that there was in fact a basis for selecting the hypostatic union as the best among competing theories. I don't think Islam has
no basis for believing it. If this was the case, why has it persisted for so long? The same is true for the hypostatic union, but you resort to playground tactics. So be it.
Murad wrote:
And you are restricting "The history of theology" to Christianity alone, lets not forget Christianity derived from Judaism, even Jesus was a Jew. Ask any rabbi on the "POSSIBILITY" of a "Trinity" or a "Hypostatic Union", the answer might surprise you.
There are so many logical fallacies here it is funny.
The answer would not surprise me, as I am aware that contemporary rabbis are not Christians. I am a Christian building a theology on the Christian Scriptures and on Christian theology. These Scriptures are the axioms, and the logical or illogical nature of the beliefs should be judged in accordance with the axioms on which the argument is built, not based on another set of axioms. I do not call you illogical by saying Christians do not think that you should fast or pray in the Muslim way. This would be a
non sequitor because your beliefs and customs are built on the Quran and not on the Bible. In the same way, your argument that the hypostatic union is illogical because Jews do not agree is a
non sequitor/
Beyond that you commit an
appeal to authority by simply saying rabbis would disagree, and an
appeal to popularity by saying most Jews are not Christians.
Are you Sufi, Sunni, Shiite, or Wahabi? If you answered Sufi, and I rejected your position as illogical because Sunni imams disagreed with your position, would I have proven anything? Of course not. That's a ridiculous argument, and an appeal to popularity and to authority. Most Jews are not Christians, but some Jews did become Christians. Many Jews disagreed with the interpretations offered by the NT, but other Jews
developed these views for the first time. You are saying that the only valid Jewish interpretation is offered by those who did not believe in Jesus, but what about the Jews who
did believe in Jesus, and who wrote the NT?
Moreover, you are showing your ignorance here. The Jewish tradition through history is mixed. Christianity arose out of Judaism, and this is a basic historical truth. Judaism is complex, and while the majority of Jewish teachings certainly are not Christian (or else the majority would have become Christian) there is certainly overlap between Jewish interpretations and the idea of a Trinity.
For example, the Holy Spirit is personified in the Talmud and Targums in m. Sotah 9:6, b. Sotah 46a, b Pesahim 117a, Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer 31, Yalkut Reubeni 9d, and others. Yet these Jews admit the Holy Spirit personified, and acknowledge only one God.
How about the encyclopedia of Hasidism, which says "The performance of the
mitzvot is to help the
Shekhinah to unite with the
Tiferet, the male principle. The sins of ISrael hinder this union and prevent the 'reunification of worlds,' which is a necessary prerequisite for the coming of God's kingdom. The hasidim, in accordance with this belief, adopted the formula (much deplored by their opponents), 'For the sake of the unification of the Holy One, blessed be He, and his
Shekhinah" which they recited before the performance of
Mitsvot"
So there is an element within Judaism granting disunity (or plurality) within the united Godhead. Sounds similar to the Trinity to me. But so what? Some Jews have similar beliefs, some do not. If we cherry pick quotes all day we can prove anything.
Can you explain to me why the opinion of rabbis is at all relevant to the question at hand? Would rabbis support your Muslim beliefs? Islam grew out of Judaism
and out of Christianity. Do you have bishops and rabbis to back up your beliefs? If not, are you illogical?
Murad wrote:
The hypostatic union is a baseless because:
1. There is absolutely not a SINGLE biblical verse that even HINTS Jesus had both attributes SIMULTANEOUSLY. And i challenge you with open arms to prove this claim wrong.
John 1:14, Colossians 1:15-22, Philippians 2:6-7 are the most famous example.
There's also the
entire book of Hebrews
Murad wrote:
2. The hypostatic union is assumed to exist subjectively for subjective reasons. And the texts from the Christian scholars you quoted from express this fact beautifully.
You assume it is wrong for subjective reasons. You have not researched it. You just copied and pasted from a website.
I've read the best arguments from the fourth century for and against the hypostatic union, and I presented the best arguments in shortened form here. Your treatment of them was weak at best. You equivocate, use rhetoric, and dodge the main thrust of the arguments. You fill your answers with logical fallacies, and then you accuse those who support the hypostatic union based on these arguments of only assuming. You illustrate beautifully how you are falling short of the ideal of your religion, here, Murad.
Murad wrote:
3. Why do the most significant doctrines such as the 'trinity' & the 'hypostatic union' need vague & assumed biblical interpretations? Does the God of the Bible like to confuse man? Why couldnt there be 1 unambiguous verse out of the 31102 verses in the Bible to erase confusion & doubt?
You granted above that it clearly states that Jesus is man. You also granted that Jesus is clearly God. Seems clear enough.
Moreover, here are reasons why lack of clarity might be good:
(1) The main purpose of Christianity is not to understand the hypostatic union. That's peripheral to other matters.
(2) Spending time trying to understand these things helps develop the mind and the understanding of the Scriptures. If it was all summarized in one easy verse, then we wouldn't develop our mind and understanding.
(3) These things are complex and cannot be fully explained in one sentence or one verse. The books on the hypostatic union are dense philosophy of significant length.
(4) Some have the spiritual gifts required for philosophy, but others do not. Why put dense philosophy in the Bible when it is intended for all believers? Why not put enough information for all, and enough to derive the key teachings?
(5) Maybe the Bible isn't the only source of authority. Perhaps the church should value tradition as the Holy Spirit guides the church in its theology, and experience as the Christian experiences God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Murad wrote:
theopoesis wrote:
Perhaps the fathers were wrong, but the did not invent the hypostatic union without any reason for having done so. It wasn't baseless.
There was plenty of "reason" to create the hypostatic union. Just like there was plenty of "reason" to create the trinity.
To erase self-contradictory verses.
So you retract your claim?
I also reject your interpretation of how things developed.
Murad wrote:
theopoesis wrote:
Murad wrote:Point 2:
Is the "hypostatic union" actually rational? By saying Jesus had 2 distinct natures: 'Divine & Human', implies that both attributes of the natures co-exist simultaneously. Any person that can think logically, can see that this is contradictory. Why? Because the attributes of man and of God contradict each other. In other words, the whole doctrine is oxyMORONIC.
I consider the capitalization of MORONIC to be an insult. Please modify your tone in the future.
The doctrine is moronic in all regards and i justified it with reasons & i will continue to justify this claim further on in this post, in no way does 'insulting' the hypostatic union insult Christianity or your belief in salvation, so please dont take it personally.
You did not justify anything. You copied and pasted someone else's arguments. Then you had the nerve to call the hypostatic union moronic.
Pasting an argument and then insulting the opposition as "moronic" does insult me and every other poster here who actually spends time in researching and thinking out their posts.
I take this very personally, because you insult my intelligence and you insult my God. I rebuke you, Murad, and I expect you to recant.
Murad wrote:
Your welcome to believe any Islamic Doctrine is 'moronic' if you can provide Quranic verses & logical reasoning to justify it just like i have.
Thank you for your permission to sin. You do not have that authority. Only God does.
Murad wrote:
theopoesis wrote:
Gregory of Nyssa responded to your question in the following way: How does the soul unite with the body in a single human person? When you can answer that question, you can answer how the divine nature was united with the human.
Answering a question with a question... aka "i dont have an answer".
I think the answer is: "A holy mystery", the same answer Christian Theologians give for the Trinity. Ill clarify this analogy further on in this post.
No, the question is an attempt to show that you must grant my beliefs if you accept your beliefs.
Further, your depiction of "christian theologians" is a
straw man. I have presented arguments why the hypostatic union makes sense. Address them adequately.
Murad wrote:
theopoesis wrote:
Do you believe in the soul, Murad? Most Muslims do.
Yes, all muslims do, you cant be a muslim without believing you have a soul.
theopoesis wrote:
Yet, the body is tangible and the soul intangible.
Agreed, its intangible to humans.
theopoesis wrote:
The body is materialistic, and the soul immaterial.
Agreed.
theopoesis wrote:
The body is corrupted by disease, but the soul by sin.
Agreed.
theopoesis wrote:
The body hungers for food, but the soul only for God.
Agreed to a certain extent.
theopoesis wrote:
Both of our religious traditions admit the possibility of a body and a soul combining into a single human person. If we admit this, despite the differences between the body and soul, why immediately reject the hypostatic union despite the differences between human and divine nature?
Simple, the Soul & the Body dont conflict with one another.
The soul is not all-knowing, the body is not all-knowing.
The soul is not all-powerful, the body is not all-powerful.
The soul is equal to the body(one is not regarded 'holier' than the other)
I just listed many ways that the soul and the body conflicted, and you agreed to each one. Then you said that the soul and body do not conflict with one another. Illogical, Murad. Quite illogical.
Moreover, you grant that two entities (soul and body) can form into a single person. Why is it necessarily illogical for the hypostatic union to let two entities form a single person? Perhaps the two specific entities don't make sense, but I expect you to retract your Point 3.
Murad wrote:
The body is soley considered a vessel, nothing more, it does not affect the soul in any way(besides corruption with sin), the same way the soul does not affect the body. But what Gregory of Nazianzus said(which you quoted) is that when the divine nature joined hypostatically with the human nature, the human nature was "PURIFIED" & "ELEVATED". This does not happen with the body & the soul.
Thus i believe its a false analogy.
You reject the divine nature and human nature because of the link between them causing one to change in levels of righteousness and purity, but you accept the body and soul as effecting one another in levels of righteousness and purity with regards to corruption in sin?
This seems like a contradiction to me.
Murad wrote:
Furthermore, even the wording used in the hypostatic union is confusing.
I mean, 100% God & 100% Human, simultaneously?
Even Greek & Roman mythology is more logically sound, as DemiGods are considered 50% Human & 50% God, where the percentage does not exceed 100%(which it logically cannot).
I am 100% American and 100% human. I am 100% white and 100% male. And so forth and so on.
You toss around the idea of being logical and illogical a lot, but do you understand what the words mean? Perhaps you can point to an actual area of lapsed logic, rather than simply labeling everything you disagree with illogical. It's lazy, really.
Murad wrote:
theopoesis wrote:
Murad wrote:Evaluation of Point 2:
God is all-knowing:
"whenever our hearts condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything."
(1 John 3:20)
Jesus
was not all-knowing:
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, NOR THE SON, but only the Father."
(Mark 13:32)
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, NOR THE SON, but only the Father."
(Matthew 24:36)
Many points here, Murad. First, "nor the son" is not in all manuscripts. It might not even be Biblical. On the other hand, there are good arguments for why it might be. So let's grant it for the moment.
The
most ancient Greek manuscripts contain the phrase "nor the son", thus its used by the RSV Bible & most of the other Bibles.
Also i dont see the benefit of you saying the "Word of God" contains fictional alterations, or am i missing something?
I grant the phrase for the point of argument, but thanks for making the argument anyway.
You are missing something, Murad. Textual variations are a fact. Even the most literal inerrantists suggest that the autographs (or original copies) had no mistakes, but grant the textual variants.
Plus, this is a
red herring. Yet another logical fallacy.
Murad wrote:
theopoesis wrote:
In John 16:30 the disciples say that Jesus knew all things.
Which is clearly rebuttaled by Jesus Christ himself in Matt 24:36 & Mark 13:32.
Who do you give more authority, Jesus or his Disciples?
The doctrine of kenosis explains this.
Murad wrote:
theopoesis wrote:
There are many other Scriptures that could be interpreted in the same way, but let's limit it to this one. If you have a set of Scriptures that seems to suggest that Jesus is both God and man, and you have passages where Jesus is depicted as all knowing (John 16:30) and passages where Jesus has limited knowledge (Matthew 24:36), is it completely unreasonable to suggest that this God-man emptied himself of some of his omniscience in the incarnation (i.e. Phil. 2)? The interpretations of Jesus' humanity and divinity are built on passages such as these, and not refuted by them. In looking at these passages, early Christians saw a human and divine savior.
The bolded texts id like you to justify, what other texts can be interpreted to show Jesus' omniscience?
You sidestep my initial argument to ask for more examples? No new examples for you until you answer the first. I'm not spending any more time than I have to in order to respond to a copy and paster.
Murad wrote:
Also you didn't even
attempt to justify the OP, and it seems you didn't even quote it. Here ill help you, these were my allegations, if you can justify these ill withdraw my earlier statement that the hypostatic union is moronic:
In order for Jesus to co-exist in 2 distinct natures: Divine(God) and human, the attributes of both the Divine and the human must co-exist simultaneously.
How can Jesus be all-knowing and not all-knowing simultaneously?
It is contradicting because: if Jesus is "all-knowing" that means he cannot be "not all-knowing." If Jesus is "not all-knowing" that means he cannot be "all-knowing."
Funny you forgot to quote the heart of my post.
Wrong. I forgot to quote heart of the post by "islamic-replies". Let me rectify that:
(1) Your claim that the full attributes of each must be shared is in fact a
straw man misrepresenting the hypostatic union. The doctrine grants that some of the divine attributes were emptied through kenosis.
My eyes can see, but my liver cannot. My person contains my seeing eyes and also my non-seeing liver. In the same way, if Jesus's person contained human nature and a distinct divine nature, then Jesus could be all knowing with respect to his divine nature, and not all knowing with respect to his human.
Murad wrote:
theopoesis wrote:
You are ignoring the entire history of theosis (etc) whereby the union of finite man and eternal God brings eternal life to finite men.[1] In fact, you are ignoring all passages in the NT that refer to the eternal life of humans.[2] And you are ignoring the fact that the paradox of finitude and eternality was a reason why the hypostatic union was devised, not why it should be rejected.[3] How can a finite human have communion with the infinite God?[4] Through the unity of finite human nature and infinite divine nature in Jesus Christ, the new Adam.[5]
Reply to the numbers:
1. What on earth does the
history of theosis have to do with this?
It's the idea that humans can take on the divine attributes over time. If this is possible, you set up a
false dichotomy another logical fallacy. You also ignore a
basis for the doctrine that you call "baseless."
[qoute="Murad"]
2. YOU are ignoring all the verses of the NT that implies
if you dont believe in Christ you
wont have "Eternal Life". Why the double standard?[/quote]
Correct, you will have eternal damnation. Moreover, unless you posit the humanity of Jesus did not receive eternal life, then the humanity of Jesus would still have eternality along with his divinity, even if some other humans did not have eternal life.
red herring
Murad wrote:
3. The paradox is still there, Jesus died while he was fully God.
To die is not to cease to exist. The scriptures are clear on this. Therefore, God did not cease to exist nor cease to be eternal.
Murad wrote:
4. Please express how Finitude & Eternality disallow communication between the two, also the Jews did it & still do it without a hypostatic union or a trinity.
What do the beliefs of the Jews have to do with anything? I explain it in the next sentence.
Murad wrote:
5. Really? Why doesn't the OT hint of this?
Millions of Christians throughout history believed that the OT did hint of this.
theopoesis wrote:
Water is H20. Two molecules of hydrogen and one of Oxygen. They form a singe molecule with distinct properties, but the hydrogen does not cease to be hydrogen nor the oxygen oxygen. The atoms have different properties (and maybe contradictory properties, i'm not sure), but we do not deny their cohesion.
Jesus wrote:A very, very poor analogy, and i find it humerous that Wootah actually complimented you on this.
First of all, basic Trinity:
The Father is God
The Son is God
The Holy Spirit is God.
Christians do NOT believe that each entity of trinity MAKES UP God, they believe each entity of the Trinity is FULLY God.
The Trinity is a
red herring. We are discussing the hypostatic union. I already linked you to my thread on the Trinity. I've also given it to you before in other threads, and you continually ignore it. I consider that evidence of how earnestly you actually look for truth. It answers your question. Now, stop changing the subject.
Murad wrote:
theopoesis wrote:
Becoming God is a destination that can ever be reached, but the union of human nature and divine nature in God is not a surefire argument against a God-man; rather it is the means by which two contradictory entities converge into communion, coherence, and identity by the restoration of the image of God.
Exactly, "Two Contradictory Entities". And i need evidence for the bolded comment.
I gave you evidence above. You also quote me out of context without addressing my argument. That is the approach of a coward who cannot think for himself. Man up, Murad. Show me you can think on your own. Step up to the plate.
Murad wrote:
theopoesis wrote:
Contradictions are admitted and necessary for an orthodox understanding of the hypostatic union, which entails such ideas as the communicatio idomatum, the convergence of the very contradiction is assumed and is a part of the doctrine. You can't falsify a doctrine that is built upon, assumes, and needs a contradiction by pointing to the contradiction.
Non Sequitur.
So i cant falsify the Trinity or the Hypostatic union because it falsifies itself? Is this your arguement?
Do you know what "non sequitor" means?
Here's the hypostatic union:
(1) Human nature and divine nature are different
(2) Human nature needs to become like divine nature
(3) Human nature can become like divine nature through union of the two
(4) Human nature was united with divine nature
(5) Therefore the contradictions between human and divine nature are resolved.
Which part of this argument is the non-sequitor? Don't toss out words unless you can point to where they apply.
Murad wrote:
theopoesis wrote:
Female and male could be united to overcome contradiction if the female could in some way limit itself to become united with male, and if the male could be raised to become female. This doesn't make sense because there is no hierarchy of male/female just as there is no means to become less male or for a female to become more male-like. Females are not omnipotent and therefore able to limit themselves in this way, and males are not created in the image of females and able to be restored to their likeness. But the language of the NT is filled with language of Jesus limiting himself in the incarnation, of humans being raised, purified, sanctified, transformed, restored, etc. through communion with God. It's full of the language of humans created in the image of God. Taking the NT, the convergence and unity in a single person of divine and human natures is different from the convergence of male and female.
For the first bolded line, "Fully Man" or "Fully Woman" means having all the qualities that Gender does, as in the human organs & hormones, body composition etc...
Thus there is no need for a 'hierarchy' of any sort.
For the second bolded line:
They are the same, as in they are two contradictory forces.
Male - Female [opposite]
Divine - Non Divine(human) [opposite]
Both conflict with each other, as in logically you cannot be both simultaneously, simply because the attributes of the divine render the attributes of the human useless. Similarly, the organ of a man(penis) was made specifically for an
opposite organ, thus you cannot have both simultaneously. (How can yo be all-knowing & not all-knowing simultaneously?)
You ignore the thrust of my argument. I have answered you above and linked you to the thread where I explain the logic of it all.
Murad wrote:
theopoesis wrote:
Sure, you can throw out the holy text, but to suggest that the hypostatic union is necessarily impossible based on an analogy to men and women does no justice to the Biblical text from which the hypostatic union emerged.
I took multiple approaches, the first approach was with the Bible, which i pointed out Jesus was not all-knowing with your own scripture.
The second approach, which is this one, i provided a logical analogy which justifies my earlier claims, on why its "Illogical".
The analogy by itself isn't necessarily conclusive, and its not ment to be, all my arguements compliment each other.
You pretend you selected each argument for specific reasons, but the only reason you selected them together is because you copied and pasted them from the same site.
Murad wrote:
theopoesis wrote:
A final point here: I argued in a thread a few months ago about Personhood that the idea of the person was historically originated in the debates surrounding chalcedon, the hypostatic union, and the Trinity. "Person" as a word and philosophical concept began to be used in a new way because of Christian theology. Suddenly, the person was the first principle and being was subordinate, so that a person is different from a being and from the nature ascribed to that being. There can be three persons subsisting in one being, just as there can be one person with two natures. The definition of person perfectly allows this. If, however, you eliminate a distinction between person and being, then personhood is a vacuous idea. If you eliminate the distinction between person and being, the idea of two natures in one person is illogical primarily because "person" has no meaning in the first place. The only plausible theistic approaches then become pantheism or panentheism or paganism, but a religion (like Christianity or Islam) that allows for a God to create a world that then stands apart from Him requires the idea of a person that is above being and can relate to other persons as others. If this is not possible, then God, in creating the Universe, expands his own being (thus pantheism) or creates a different being that cannot therefore relate to His own being. The philosophy undergirding Christianity frees it from your challenge just as it allows for the basic theological tennets of both of our faiths.
The bolded bit i agree
if the two natures arn't self-contradictory and are run simultaneously.
Islam does not have this problem, when we say God is 1(person/being/entity whatever), we absolutely mean it, exactly like Judaism, the words "Being/Existing" are not pre-defined. One thing that seperates Judaism & Islam from Christianity, is that we do not attribute
NUMBERS to the oneness of God.
If "being" and "existing" is not pre-defined, how do you know what it means? Do you understand the way linguistics works?
You ignore my entire argument. Does "person" as a word actually have any meaning itself given your definition? Why say God is one "person" if you really mean "one Being"? Was the word completely pointless?
Murad wrote:
theopoesis wrote:
To summarize: Your argument is poorly worded, counter-examples exist, you do not accurately represent the hypostatic union (thus a straw man), your criticism can be leveled against your own position, and you pay no attention to the philosophy of ontology and personhood. In short, your critique is entirely too simplistic and uninformed.
If my post is that simple why didn't you even attempt to justify my arguements?(The ones i re-quoted) Or why did you present an illogical h20 analogy that is completely incompatible with the hypostatic union?
Why would I justify your arguments? I am trying to reject them? My H20 analogy applies perfectly to the hypostatic union, if you'd studied it and not copied it from a muslim spam website.
theopoesis wrote:
Murad wrote:
Conclusion:
The Hypostatic Union is a concoction, which when analysed, contradicts itselfs.
Did you actually "analyze"? Murad, I don't go around starting threads about how Islam is oxyMORONIC because I don't know the doctrines of Islam well enough to judge.
There are no self-contradictory doctrines, or doctrines that rely on contradictions in Islam. Infact if you believe there are, the Quran challenges you to prove it:
Why do they not study the Quran carefully? If it were from other than GOD, they would have found in it numerous contradictions.
[Quran 4:82]
As you said earlier, the hypostatic union was created
TO POINT OUT the contradiction(Of simultaneous existence). The doctrine itself does not give an
answer to the contradiction, it simply shows there is a discrepancy but
somehow it still exists.[/quote]
This is a misquote. I did not say this was why it was created, I said that it acknowledged the distinctions.
Murad wrote:
The exact parallel can be said for the Trinity, the doctrine points out the contradiction, but somehow it still exists. (With no logical answer given)
I gave you a logical response. You ignored it. Typical.
Murad wrote:
theopoesis wrote:
I've taken a class or two and read a few books and talked with a few Muslim friends, but I'm still learning. Your post is evidence to me that you took a definition from a dictionary and a three sentence summary of the hypostatic union then tried to show why it was moronic. Perhaps you could better understand what the hypostatic union was, how it originated, or what sources it came from if you sought to understand it more fully first. Have you ever read Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor, Cyril of Alexandria, or any other theologian who actually addresses these issues? It might be helpful if you did.
The history of the Hypostatic Union or how "it came into being" or how it "evolved" really does not affect the OP unless you can show me how. Like the quotations you provided earlier, they are mere
opinion, with absolutely
no objective evidence, claims are made on 'why' it
has to exist, while no answer is given on
how it exists logically.
I have given answers repeatedly. You have ignored them, ignored my request to go to other forums, ignored my willingness to a 1:1 debate as I offered on another thread, and ignored my final posts in threads on the Gospel of the Nazarenes and the Trinity. On the Nazarenes thread and on this one, you just copied your initial arguments from another website. And then you dismiss whatever I say as "opinion" with no "objective evidence."
Lazy and pathetic. I expected more from you when we first met. I think your God would expect more as well. You were once one of the debaters I most respected. I've been completely blunt on this post, and quite expect a moderator intervention, but something has to wake you up.
