Forum for ex-members of Revival Churches
Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums Aimoo Forum List | Ticket | Today | Member | Search | Who's On | Help | Sign In | |
Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums > Reviving from Revival > The Ex-Christian Chatroom Go to subcategory:
Author Content
Ex_Member

Date Posted:21/04/2006 9:43 AMCopy HTML

How could Jesus have been divine and human at the same instant? The very idea of being 'God' is about being limitless in knowledge, power, etc. However, the idea of being TRULY human is about being limited in all these things. Theologians have wrestled with this and have some unique terms to describe the union of man and God in Jesus, but to no avail as it fails to make any logical sense.Jesus could not have been fully God or fully man at once. He was eitherlimitlessand not human orlimitedand not God. Of course the third option is that he was a hybrid and not truly Godorman. But that doesn't help the orthodox doctrines at all now does it?Yes, I hear some say, "with God all things are possible" but this answers nothing and is akin to believing the sun revolves around the earth simply because the Bible says it does.
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #1
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Fully God and Fully Man?

Date Posted:26/04/2006 12:56 AMCopy HTML

No takers?

Anonymous Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #2
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:06/04/2001 10:54 PM

Re:Fully God and Fully Man?

Date Posted:26/04/2006 8:48 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : Mr J

No takers?
I guess people aren't really interested in your brand of Christianity bashing.
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #3
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Fully God and Fully Man?

Date Posted:26/04/2006 9:09 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : Anonymous

I guesspeople aren't really interested in your brand of Christianity bashing.
I guess not. But it is such an easy target .
mf doom Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #4
  • Rank:Poster Venti I
  • Score:6110
  • Posts:262
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:13/03/2005 7:23 AM

Re:Fully God and Fully Man?

Date Posted:11/05/2006 7:49 AMCopy HTML

hey, long time...

yeah, i think it's a very good point. i like your current signature quotes too...

also, i agree with the easy target thing... i pity most christians as they know not what they do.

i'm probably preparing my best ammo for the movement of christian fundamentalists around the globe.

we had a lady come in to our school from abroad and give a little talk about it. maybe you already know that it's not just the islamic fundamentalists literally arming-up and globalising.

[myths of election are so passe!]

...and we saw how at the bottom of it all were the little things we were all quite ignorantly involved in, like prayer for prosperity and songs of power, just to name a couple.


anyway, in relation to the first post, my basic understanding is that 'god' is what people use to explain the unknown. basically, jesus' real dad was unknown or mary didn't want him to be known.

boy, did she create a monster!

if it gives you joy, enjoy! life aint pretty without it
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #5
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Fully God and Fully Man?

Date Posted:12/05/2006 9:49 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : avenger dude

we had a lady come in to our school from abroad and give a little talk about it. maybe you already know that it's not just the islamic fundamentalists literally arming-up and globalising.

For sure.  Whether with weapons or not, Christians are SOOOO bloody organised.


...and we saw how at the bottom of it all were the little things we were all quite ignorantly involved in, like prayer for prosperity and songs of power, just to name a couple.

There's a good book that juxtaposes Islamic, Christian and Jewish fundamentalism, written by Karen Armstrong, a former Catholic nun who is one of England's most respected religous 'experts'.  Well worth a read:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345391691/sr=8-4/qid=1147481060/ref=pd_bbs_4/104-4278510-1455136?%5Fencoding=UTF8

anyway, in relation to the first post, my basic understanding is that 'god' is what people use to explain the unknown. basically, jesus' real dad was unknown or mary didn't want him to be known.

Allthough I am not quite an atheist...yet, I am leaning toward the view that 'God' is either not there, or at the best unknowable.

And back to the topic at hand.  I noticed someone anonymously posted this comment in another thread:

But to take the discussion forward, JJesus, by virtue of his incarnation, willingly accepted limitations to his exercising his Godly prerogatives. One of these limitations was to his omniscience to his complete and total knowledge of all events. In verse 36 we find Jesus admitting that he didn't know the time of his return. This might raise further questions in the minds of some people (notably those who don't understand the theology of his 'self-emptying'), but the central mystery of the incarnation is the fusing (without intermingling) of two distinctly different natures: human and divine. I'd be so bold as to suggest that as human beings, we aren't even capable of exhaustive knowledge or insight, so we should simply accept that this is 'and probably always will remain' a mystery.

What a complete load of shit!  First, he says that those who oppose this Xian doctrine, 'don't understand the theology of his 'self-emptying' and then labels it 'the central mystery of the incarnation'.  So, there are those who do and don't understand the mystery?  We, unbelievers are unable to grasp these great mysteries.  But believers can grasp this mystery!  How lucky for them.  They can't understand it...but they can grasp it!   He then tells us, 'we should simply accept that this is 'and probably always will remain' a mystery.'  Yeah well, go right ahead.  Lucky that we have been taught to not just accept things the church teaches anymmore, or the sun would still revolve around the earth!

You cannot be both God and man at one time because a god cannot be limited without not being truly God and a man cannot be unlimited or he is now more than a man.  Ain't no mystery here...just wishful thinking.

mf doom Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #6
  • Rank:Poster Venti I
  • Score:6110
  • Posts:262
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:13/03/2005 7:23 AM

Re:Fully God and Fully Man?

Date Posted:14/05/2006 6:26 AMCopy HTML

disclaimer: reading of anonymous labels like 'christian basher' causes me to react extremely. i am, of course, aware that i don't know anything. but when people think they do, i like to go extreme in the other direction. you know, slap 'em back, intead of turning the other cheek. i'll probably jump on the bandwagon that says there is a good place in the world for organised religion and complete 'secularisation' might be scary. diversity is good. monotheists generally think other wise: its black or white.

basically, i don't know if there is a 'god' or nott either, and i don't think i really care because you can spend your life trying to prove or disprove it and it the end the answer is a personally experience/relationship/emotion. once again i'm thinking as i type, so its all subject to change.

perhaps, if god IS everything, then everything IS god. pretty simple really. another similar idea is that everything includes a bit of god in it... so, jesus is part divine (?), but so are you and i and the stones jesus said might cry.

and apart from jesus admitting he didn't know something, there are also the bits where he said he is not good, that no-one but god is good. he also said 'ye are gods' to the crowd.

maybe we could work through this (?)

i agree that it sucks as soon as that christian arrogance (as opposed to my arrogance) emerges with presuppositions of an ultimate truth that apparently some people have. maybe if it was worded like 'our understanding, which is different to the others' undertanding'. or maybe even refer to it as an explanation, as it probably actually is. basically, if you believe an explanation, your mind somehow understands it, right? something about rationality. i mean, the whole belief thing is not completely divine, if humans have to read the words of scripture, for instance, is it? they have to process the information.

and speaking of the information age, maybe we are all a bit guilty of this, but the human thing of thinking we know it all is enhanced, i think. which goes for christians too. and their belief requires the presence of plausibility structures, so it is not just the word and some divine power keeping them there. they are constantly hearing man's interpretations from the pulpit and all the other words he slips in between. plus all the comedy and current world events chucked into the script for effectivity.

so, i agree about you sentiments on the concept of 'understanding', although i failed to notice it at first. the paragraph was interesting in ways. sounds like the person as a brain cell or two anyway, just lacks a bit of understanding!

basically, i don't want to feel like i have to read the theological theory of self-emptying and i guess that makes a big difference. maybe its what ideology one chooses to read that influences one's understanding.

discussions are interesting because the participants only use what information and understanding they have on them at the time.

so, if there is a god and he IS everything, then are we all a part of god?

if god was an intelligent persona, it's still hard to picture the creation of the world because where did the 'raw' materials come from? or was it a part of 'his' body that was used to create it? if so, maybe we are all part divine. when it was separated from his 'body' did it 'die'/lose divinity? if so, humans are separated from the divine. even a starting point is difficult to suggest.

it can be hard to control the mind when it comes to these concepts. well, mine, anyway. and then i also choose to be ingnorant to certain studies that have probably gone here in depth (usually from a theological/religious perspective, hence, 'tainted' in a way IM'H'O). i would be approaching the idea from the angle (my belief/understanding) that Jesus was JUST A MAN.

therefore, when (for example) two people are approaching this problem of half man/half divine is possible, like a lot of discussions that involve belief and/or so called 'understanding', it's almost as if a conclusion was never possible. unless the more persuasive person convinces. which brings us back to law, politics and academia (especially today?). its all about persuasion/argumentation the way i see it. then you see why so much money is poured into advertising, marketing and political campaigns. ideology.

in the end you wonder whether divinity is just at the top of a hierarchy of power-knowledge.

is it possible for jesus (or anyone) to be a slave AND a master?

thanks
if it gives you joy, enjoy! life aint pretty without it
mf doom Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #7
  • Rank:Poster Venti I
  • Score:6110
  • Posts:262
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:13/03/2005 7:23 AM

Re:Fully God and Fully Man?

Date Posted:14/05/2006 8:43 AMCopy HTML

oh, im with you now, FULLY god and FULLY man...

ok, the only logical (human) explanation is that man is god (?)

eg.all man = all god

but would that mean there are as many gods as people or that each person is a part of a collective god?

and then if you can prove that god created the universe, then that would mean that man created the universe.

if it means representation of the universe, then perhaps this is the oldest surviving references to the simulacrum (matrix)!

didn't scientists create the universe or at least images of it in our heads?

it's late

if it gives you joy, enjoy! life aint pretty without it
RCI prophesies
Copyright © 2000- Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.