Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That's difficult because hybrid is not an adequate word and he was both fully human and fully divine.

Doesn’t work. If he was “fully human” then he was fully mortal too; if he was “fully divine” then he was (presumably) fully immortal too. You can have either, but you can’t have both - they contradict each other. 

One way out of that bind perhaps would be to claim fully human and fully divine components somehow integrated (or hybridised), but again that would ruin your “fully” assertions. A liger is part lion and part tiger, but it’s not ”fully” either.   

Do you see the problem here?

Jesus was born and died, Divinity doesn't die, but Jesus is not just divinity and he died.

So the human part died and the divine part jumped ship (at some unknown time)?

Is that where you want to be with this story?

Without humanity there can be no such God Man relationship so that started at Jesus conception and ceased at Jesus death.

Aw, so close – if only you’d have stopped at “Without humanity there can be no such God …” you’d have been on firm ground (ie people invent the gods that suit them best), but then you ruined it by diving headlong into unqualified assertion again. Ah well.

And that is a perfectly straightforward account

Very droll I’m sure.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Explain.

Explain please surely?

If Fred has ginger hair, blue eyes and size ten feet I’m merely listing different characteristics of the same, indivisible Fred.

If Fred’s triplet siblings on the other hand enter the story, then there are three “divisible” characters involved.   

You’re trying to smash the two different meanings into one inherently contradictory meaning. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Jesus is both fully human and divine.

Except he couldn't have been for the same reason a liger can't be fully lion and fully tiger. This isn't a point about Jesus, it's a point about logic. It's like trying to claim a triangle with bulging sides of is fully a triangle and fully a circle at the same time. Doesn't work does it, no matter how much you may wish it were otherwise.   

Oh, and as you’ve just ignored it again: what's the latest re sorting out your timeline re people being here before or after the crucifixion of Jesus by the way - do you need even more time to get your story straight?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Doesn’t work. If he was “fully human” then he was fully mortal too; if he was “fully divine” then he was (presumably) fully immortal too. You can have either, but you can’t have both - they contradict each other.

He was fully human. He was conceived, Lived a life and died. How more fully human can you get.
He was also fully divine, Divinity does not die but someone who is both fully human and fully divine only exists as such as long as the human part does and thus experiences death and does not achieve being again until being resurrected by God   

One way out of that bind perhaps would be to claim fully human and fully divine components somehow integrated (or hybridised), but again that would ruin your “fully” assertions. A liger is part lion and part tiger, but it’s not ”fully” either.

There is no bind Jesus is both completely God and completely man he experiences a life and death.   

Do you see the problem here?

since you think the problem is mine....No

So the human part died and the divine part jumped ship (at some unknown time)?

I don't believe that the divine jumped ship for there was no longer any ship. 

Is that where you want to be with this story?

which story are you talking about? Yours or mine

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Have you given up completely on quotation marks now? Oh well.

He was fully human.

He was conceived, Lived a life and died. How more fully human can you get.

So not to fully divine then. Fair enough.

He was also fully divine,…

Make your mind up! If he was fully human then he must have had some features that meant he couldn’t have been fully divine (like mortality). On the other hand, if he was fully divine then he must have had some features that meant he couldn’t have been fully human (like immortality).

Can you see now the logical problems accepting theobollocks gives you?

Divinity does not die but someone who is both fully human and fully divine only exists as such as long as the human part does and thus experiences death and does not achieve being again until being resurrected by God

You’re plunging into mindless faith claims again here. If ever you can think of some reasoning to justify these (frankly bizarre) assertions though, by all means share it here. 
   

There is no bind Jesus is both completely God and completely man he experiences a life and death.

Of course there is. Just repeating the same contradictory claim doesn’t make it any less contradictory. You do understand that right? 

since you think the problem is mine....No

Then you should (see above).

I don't believe that the divine jumped ship for there was no longer any ship.

So the bit of Jesus that was part human evaporated as well as died then?

Really? 

which story are you talking about? Yours or mine

I don’t have one - I was just explaining to you where and why your story keeps collapsing in a welter of contradictions, blind assertions and non sequiturs.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Have you given up completely on quotation marks now? Oh well.

So not to fully divine then. Fair enough.

I'm afraid the divine can never be anything less than fully divine. Just like you can't be ''a little bit pregnant''
That's why we say God is indivisible.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm afraid the divine can never be anything less than fully divine.

It could be if you stripped away some of the features needed for divinity - like immortality.

Just you can't be ''a little bit pregnant'

No, not just like that at all. It’s more like a triangle with bulging sides being triangle-ish (three sides, three internal angles etc), but not fully a triangle (because the sides aren’t straight).

I did warn you about accepting theobollocks uncritically – perhaps you should have listened?

That's why we say God is indivisible.

You can say it but if you still want to claim separate (ie, “divided”) entities rather than just different features of the same entity it’s still inherently contradictory – ie, logically impossible.

By the way, did you ever decide whether to stick by your claim that humans only appeared when Jesus was crucified, or have you now changed your mind about that?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

It could be if you stripped away some of the features needed for divinity - like immortality.

Not even strip away, just not utilize them

You can say it but if you still want to claim separate (ie, “divided”) entities rather than just different features of the same entity it’s still inherently contradictory – ie, logically impossible.

You can be fully human and fully english say. Your englishness starts at birth and ends at death but englishness exists before and after your birth and death. That's an analogy BTW

By the way, did you ever decide whether to stick by your claim that humans only appeared when Jesus was crucified, or have you now changed your mind about that?

I think you must have misunderstood something i said.

[Sebastian Toe]

Location? You mean spatial coordinates? No, it is not subject to those IMHO.

No I don't mean spacial coordinates.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Still no quote marks then?

Not even strip away, just not utilize them

Wrong again. When the features contradict each other (eg mortality/immortality) then “utilising” either knocks out the other. Try to remember this.
 

You can be fully human and fully english say. Your englishness starts at birth and ends at death but englishness exists before and after your birth and death.

Yes, but there’s still only one “you” – you’re just repeating the Fred with ginger hair, blue eyes and size ten feet example I gave you. Your religious claim though is akin to triplet Fred having Ginger har, triplet Mary having blue eyes and triplet Sam having size ten feet – there’s still just one set of triplets, but they’re divided into three separate people.       

That's an analogy BTW

It’s an attempt at one, but a failed attempt.

I think you must have misunderstood something i said.

Really? What you said was: “When Jesus ascends it is back to the father as it were. He has to become the God man because Man or people come into being” (Reply 43282).

According to your myth then “he has to become God man” (sic) when he “ascends back to the father” which (you tell us) is after the crucifixion “because Man or people come into being”.

How else could that be understood? 

[jeremyp]

I pick God  No they are not 

Why do you bother having three names for them then?

Jesus was also fully human so had every right to talk to and about God like this.

You mean talk to himself and about himself like that.

God resurrected him.

But God was dead remember? He died on the cross. You've just claimed - in the same post - that Jesus and God are not separate entities. If Jesus is dead then everything else that is the same entity is dead.

Your belief is incoherent. No amount of you pretending logical contradictions are not logical contradictions is going to change that. The people on here that you are conversing with are too smart for that.

[jeremyp]

He is both God and man. That dies when Jesus died. The man has gone so there cannot be a God Man. The only possible reversal of that is to be resurrected by God.

But God is Jesus. You said so yourself. If he's dead, how can he resurrect himself?

[jeremyp]

No there's the substantial nature of the trinity, all three persons are of the same divine substance. which is indivisible.

And yet Christians divide this substance into the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Still no quote marks then?

Wrong again. When the features contradict each other (eg mortality/immortality) then “utilising” either knocks out the other. Try to remember this.

Jesus dies and God the son exists prior, during, and subsequent to this death He dies because he is completely human and penal substitution is realised
 

. Really? What you said was: “When Jesus ascends it is back to the father as it w ere.

Yes

  He has to become the God man because Man or people come into being”

What this means is that he is not the God man prior to his conception/ birth, because people or Men need to be born first. Not only does he call himself the son of God but also the son of man 

According to your myth then “he has to become God man” (sic) when he “ascends back to the father” which (you tell us) is after the crucifixion “because Man or people come into being”.

wrong interpretation. You seem to think the logos was ''Jesus, the God man'' before his appearance in time and space. One has to become a human being.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why do you bother having three names for them then?

Why have three names for H20?

You mean talk to himself and about himself like that.

Have you not heard of self talk, Has your subconscious never revealed anything to you in dreams

But God was dead remember? He died on the cross.

Only the son of God, Jesus the Father resurrected him You've just claimed - in the same post - that Jesus and God are not separate entities.

I have merely said he was completely God and completely human

If Jesus is dead, Jesus died a human death. At that moment the God Man was no more

then everything else that is the same entity is dead.

Divinity would have experienced the death of humanity but  one might suppose divinity carries on.

Your belief is incoherent. No amount of you pretending logical contradictions are not logical contradictions is going to change that. The people on here that you are conversing with are too smart for that.

There are no logical contradictions as far as I can see, you have demonstrated areas where you have not been following, put in your own interpretation, made category errors.

Unfortunately there isn't the intellectual oversight on this board to verify your claim of smartness.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But God is Jesus. You said so yourself. If he's dead, how can he resurrect himself?

Jesus humanity was resurrected by God the father. According to the biblical data.
At that point the God Man returned.

[Outrider]

No there's the substantial nature of the trinity, all three persons are of the same divine substance. which is indivisible.

Which was determined how, exactly?

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Jesus dies and God the son exists prior, during, and subsequent to this death He dies because he is completely human and penal substitution is realised

Still not getting it then. If you want to claim a “fully human and fully divine” Jesus this gives you a basic contradiction, namely that characteristics necessary for each model contradict each other (simultaneously mortal and immortal for example). If you want to claim a single, integrated Jesus this leaves you dead in the water therefore. Your only way out is to claim the two different models somehow co-inhabiting the same body, one part of which dies and the other which magics its way “back to the Father” or some such.     
 

What this means is that he is not the God man prior to his conception/ birth, because people or Men need to be born first. Not only does he call himself the son of God but also the son of man

So it “means” pretty much the opposite of what you said then. If that’s the story you want to reify now though, fair enough.
 

wrong interpretation. You seem to think the logos was ''Jesus, the God man'' before his appearance in time and space. One has to become a human being.

There’s no interpretation needed – you screwed up your timeline is all.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Jesus humanity was resurrected by God the father.

You do love an unqualified faith claim don’t you.

According to the biblical data.

“Data”? You can’t just reify folk stories into data. Try “According to the biblical story” if you don’t want to overreach. 

At that point the God Man returned.

And an unqualified faith claim to finish it is then.

[ProfessorDavey]

According to the biblical data.

What data?!? There aren't any data.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What data?!? There aren't any data.

Dictionary definition of Data Definition 3.

things known or assumed as facts, making the basis of reasoning or calculation.

Data in this case. The Accounts in the Bible.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Dictionary definition of Data Definition 3.

things known or assumed as facts, making the basis of reasoning or calculation.

Data in this case. The Accounts in the Bible.

And this helps you how do you think?

The Big Book of Leprechauns contains the data that they leave pots of gold at the ends of rainbows. Therefore you should agree with me when I make various claims and assertions about the meaning of this activity.

Do you see anything wrong with this line of reasoning?     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which was determined how, exactly?

O.

From what Christ has been reported to have said about himself in the Bible, By his assumption by Jesus of divine offices i.e. forgiveness of sins, Salvation, The declaration that he and the father are one, The assumption by the holy spirit of divine offices e.g. conviction of sin. By the experience of Christians of the transcendent father, the salvific son and the imminence of the holy spirit and the processing of these and biblical texts by formal ecumenical council.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dictionary definition of Data Definition 3.

things known or assumed as facts, making the basis of reasoning or calculation.

Data in this case. The Accounts in the Bible.

The resurrection of Jesus is not 'assumed as fact' nor is it based on 'reasoning or calculation'.

The claims in the bible are not, under any sensible definition of data (including the one you've quoted), data.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

From what Christ has been reported to have said about himself in the Bible, By his assumption by Jesus of divine offices i.e. forgiveness of sins, Salvation, The declaration that he and the father are one, The assumption by the holy spirit of divine offices e.g. conviction of sin. By the experience of Christians of the transcendent father, the salvific son and the imminence of the holy spirit and the processing of these and biblical texts by formal ecumenical council.

I suspect that Outy was asking for something other than unqualified faith claims.