Can anyone actually explain the Hypostatic union without just saying it a mystery? It seems like a contradiction
Can anyone actually explain the Hypostatic union without just saying it a mystery? It seems like a contradiction
Can anyone actually explain the Hypostatic union without just saying it a mystery? It seems like a contradiction
From what I understood, Trinitarian Christians treat "God" as an adjective, so each one of the hypostases (persons) can be God, just like three persons can be adult, for example. It's strange to me because I don't think God should or could be treated as an adjective. And the adjective is the essence, nature or "ousía". Anyway, I don't believe in the Trinity. If you treat God as a noun how it apparently should be done, to me, it gets illogical.
have a read.
the entirety of a council was about defining that.
put simply, Christ is fully God and fully man. read the nicene creed, really.
what seems contradictory about it?
it's a noun still, and such a notion isn't held by anyone. the simplest way of saying it is that God is triune.
>what seems contradictory about it?
The fact that God and man are opposites in so many ways. God is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, perfect, etc while man is not.
And that's not a contradiction how? Being God and man at the same time is like being dead and alive at the same time or hungry and full at the same time
I don't see how God and human are diametrically opposed considering Genesis literally says God made humans in his image.
They aren't. In fact Jesus cites Psalm 82 in John 10:31-37 in defending himself against the accusation that he was making himself out to be God. Psalm 82 in reference to the crowd that wanted to stone him. He declared them to be gods (elohim), and him to be no more elohim than they were.
I think you have just discovered theosis rather than disproven Christ's divinity.
We're not diametrically opposed in every single way but we are in a lot of ways. God is perfect while man isn't, God is all powerful while man isn't, God is all knowing while man isn't, so how can these be reconciled together?
The biblical idea of Christ being God in the flesh is that the flesh, human part of Christ was fallible and... human. But the soul and life of Christ was perfectly lived. I personally do not see how these things are at odds except by personal interpretations. Factually, the nature of God, the creator of the universe, expressing himself in Jesus Christ is perfectly possible by the understanding that God can do anything anytime he wants.
>the flesh, human part of Christ was fallible and... human. But the soul and life of Christ was perfectly lived
So was Jesus fallible or not? You can't be fallible and infallible at the same time but it sounds like that's what the Hypostatic union says.
>Jesus Christ is perfectly possible by the understanding that God can do anything anytime he wants.
But aren't there certain things God can't do like make a square circle or make a stone he can't lift? I would think the Hypostatic union would be another one of these things
"In his image" does not mean "equal".
>it's a noun still, and such a notion isn't held by anyone
St. Gregory of Nyssa treated God as an adjective
>Christ is fully God and fully man
You just treated God as an adjective
Curious how you got that from "is fully god" and not "is fully man", the exact same phraseology.
I don't get your point. In "is fully man", "man" is also an adjective.
False
What is the grammatical classification for "man" in the phrase, then? Remember adverbs like "fully" don't modify nouns.
200% godman
No
do the math
On what?
Hm, maybe you're right with this one. I'll think more about it.
>The computer doesn't even know what a man is, and assumes it's some kind of tranny, therefore Jesus. Hmmm Interesting point.
If you treat "God" as a noun, as in the image you posted, it will indeed be a predicate nominative, which will make the Trinity illogical. If you treat "God" as "divine", something similar to what Gregory of Nyssa does, then the Trinity will be possible. The problem, as I said, is that God shouldn't or couldn't be treated as an adjective.
This isn't clever
Why do you say that? Any argument?
Its an empty string of words. There's nothing to engage with. You've just imported a completely distinct debate and are expecting us to try and piece together what you're talking about.
You say the trinitarian view is illogical but don't try and prove it. You make a quip about Gregory of nyssa as if "the divine" isn't a noun
>You say the trinitarian view is illogical but don't try and prove it. You make a quip about Gregory of nyssa as if "the divine" isn't a noun
First of all, for Gregory, the word God doesn't even predicate the divine nature:
"[...] Does “Is God” Really Predicate the Divine Nature?
I take issue with Cross here, because, while Gregory of course does not take
“God” to signify a particular hypostasis, critically Gregory does not take “God”
to signify a nature, or ousia, either. Thus, unlike “man,” the word “God” is not
a substance-sortal at all. [...]", "[...] Thus, Gregory makes it quite clear here that, in his view, “God” is in no way a
special term for predicating the divine ousia, since it can be applied to obviously non-divine beings. Rather, this is a claim he attributes to his opponents. [...]".
But you're right, for him, "God" signifies "beholder", which is a noun. The problem is that it reduces God to this agent noun, which I don't think should or could be done. But thinking now, I can be wrong. It all depends on your definition of "God". I don't think "beholder" is a good definition. And I suppose that for you, as for Gregory, this is a good definition for "God". So like this, the Trinity can be possible. But if it's not an agent noun like that, it's logically impossible, because it goes back to the Logical Problem of the Trinity.
Source:
https://philarchive.org/archive/BRATLP-3
And how does this writer resolve the logical problem of the trinity? Can you refute him?
>And how does this writer resolve the logical problem of the trinity?
Accepting Gregory's definition of God and formalizing it to logical terms
>Can you refute him?
Probably no, if the definition for "God" adopted is "beholder", my point is that this definition is inappropriate and reducing for God. So using their (Gregory's and the author's) terms, no, and the Trinity is possible. If you use a definition for "God" which isn't an agent noun, then yes, I can refute the Trinity logically and actually it's already been done, even by the same author of the dissertation.
>inappropriate and reducing
Are you a trinitarian christian?
No.
I'm talking about the definition of "God".
What's your standard for appropriateness? Why is this inappropriate?
Because a God is generally defined as a creator of the universe, capable of anything, present everywhere, knowing all things etc. "Beholder" is quite not the same thing...
as the creator*
And anyway, it's all a matter of defining "God", as I said. You can think of " God" as "beholder", if you please. It's just that I don't think that even most Christians subconsciously have that definition in mind. But if you adopt it, then yes, the Trinity can be possible.
You're trying to imply that the term "beholder" is incompatible with the classical attributes of God and you're hoping I won't notice
"Beholder" is generally compatible with the classical attributes of God. But "beholder" alone as the definition of "God" is inappropriate and reducing.
>alone
Where'd you get that?
"[...] Thus, although Gregory can and does enter into debates that
assume “God” is a kind term like “man,” his actual view is that it is more like
“rhetorician” or “shoemaker” (on Gregory’s view, as we will see, p. 175, it prob-
ably means something like the “beholder” of hidden things) [...]", "[...] Gregory argues in detail for the point that “God” cannot name the divine
nature. But naturally this raises the question, what does “God” signify. His
answer, a certain kind of energeia. Namely, our good friend “beholding”: [...]", "[...] Thus, on Gregory’s actual view, “God” is not a kind-term like “man” or “horse,” but an agent noun like “philosopher” or “rhetorician.” (Specifically, in
Gregory’s view, to be a god is to have the power to “behold” hidden things.) [...]".
Ok? This doesn't make your case
How?
I gave three examples in which the definition of Gregory for "God" is "beholder".
You're asking me to prove a negative..
This passage doesn't deny that a view following Gregory only uses a term approximating "beholder" or that one with such a view would fail to affirm the classical divine attributes
What's your overall point here? You've conceded that the doctrine is not necessarily illogical and need not be read as an attribute. This is not even the topic of the thread, which is the hypostatic union.
>This passage doesn't deny that a view following Gregory only uses a term approximating "beholder" or that one with such a view would fail to affirm the classical divine attributes
The three passages are Gregory's definition of God.
>What's your overall point here? You've conceded that the doctrine is not necessarily illogical and need not be read as an attribute
That it's illogical if you don't use an agent noun as the definition for God
Three passages of Gregory do not constitute an exhaustive trinitarian theology
Point taken, let's move on
>Three passages of Gregory do not constitute an exhaustive trinitarian theology
I don't get your point. Isn't Gregory responsible for the working of the doctrine of the Trinity? His definition of "God" is one, if not the most, of the most central points in the Trinity.
The possibility of the Trinity depends on one using his reducing definition
I asked why you're fixated on the concept as god as beholder "alone", as in, without affirming the divine attributes.
Because that's the agent noun Gregory uses to define "God". And he doesn't think of it as an attribute of "God", he thinks of it as "God" itself. Thinking now, not even if you adopt this definition the Trinity would be possible, because three beholders is Tritheism.
Also, "having the attributes of God" is not the same thing as "being God".
Also, because this agent noun alone for thr definition of "God" is inappropriate and reducing, and that's what was used by Gregory.
God creates our reality, determines it's characteristics and very foundation on it. Omnipresent, timeless, unimaginable. Lord Jesus Christ is what his name says - Christos. A fully enlightened human being.
What if that’s the answer? Why are you entitled to God’s mysteries?
nah, the whole church has decided on how to properly define it.
mysteries are the answer to most sacraments, though (a belief the Orthodox hold as the proper explanation); some try to explain them(Catholics with accidents and essence), and other strip them to metaphors/signs (most Protestants).
Then would you consider that it's illogical?
Hypostatic union is the method we use to prove that Jesus was born from an act of anal sex.
>conception is lust
what, why, and why does this person seem to not understand what the Annunciation was?
post your hook nose
>Hypostatic union
This term is found nowhere in the Bible, so it's just made up.
it's just a term to explain a notion.
what vile feeling or enjoyment do you derive from saying these disgusting things?
to also throw your blasphemy out, the entire notion of the virgin birth entails no contact between the parents.
i shouldn't even be taking such a blatant attack seriously.
No, He confirmed it.
there is no concise "defense against it" in His words, as you seem to imply.
>Disputing the word of Constantine, the foremost theologian of LULZ
Enjoy your stay in hell.
And comes from Greek philosophy
All major denominations of Christianity have missed the entire point of Lord Jesus Christ's teachings and I think it's on purpose. But in all denominations there were and still are people who have achieved Theosis and completed the work as instructed by the Lord.
Jesus is fully god and fully man
You're fully wrong
About the meaning of the doctrine? No, I'm not.
No, Jesus was accused of making himself out to be God. He defended himself against the accusation.
Are you intellectually capable of discussing a topic if you don't believe it's true?
Yes, in fact that's what we're doing right now. Jesus was accused of making himself out to be God, and he defended himself against the accusation. So you are wrong.
John 10:31-37
Ok. Have I correctly stated the doctrine called the hypostatic union?
I'm only interested in what the Bible says, not umbrella terminology people invent. Jesus was accused of making himself out to be God, and he defended himself against the accusation thus debunking the idea that he is God.
John 10:31-37
I am irreligious but I was into Christian theology.
So,
Picrel is car, right? 100 percent.
Well picrel is also a digital image, 100 percent.
Picrel is also red, it is a 100 percent red car, it depicts nothing else.
But picrel is one, it is not divided into parts except in specific ways.
Hypostatic union stems from same idea,
(remember: Platonic/Greek physics is present here not modern atomic physics! Attributes=Physical facts according to it!)
in attribute Jesus is 100 percent human
So he is God, as John 1:1 says, so it is also his attribute 100 percent God
Therefore Jesus is, just like how picrel is 100 percent digital image and 100 percent car at same time, 100 percent God and 100 percent human according to Christian theology.
>Picrel is car, right?
No, it's just a picture of a car. It is only a car via a linguistic failure to communicate meaning.
>No, it's just a picture of a car.
exactly, in Platonic physics everything physical is actually "pictures" or "reflections" of the "ultimate form".
Since atomism has been dead, even though in modern times we proven it right, since like end of Magna Graecia colonies in hands of Roman Empire... Thats the only physics they knew.
So, all humans are actually pictures of perfect forms ofthese persons and actual form can not be known with emprical meanings according to it.
Now you see why i leftthe religion? everything feels like an abandoned ancient library instead of a living family.
No, that is just the mode of our perception. Our perception of things is separate of the things themselves. Our perception of them does not change what they are.
The above will always be the picture of a car. A picture car of a car that is red. And in being red, it does not become different. It just becomes more described.
exactly, you see why I am not a Christian. Congrats, you want a medal?!
Do you not want people to address your propositions? I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. Maybe intellectual discussion isn't for you.
>Maybe intellectual discussion isn't for you.
I didnt came here for discussion, I just presented what would a medieval Greek would think about how world works. You seem angry about something.
You are fully obnoxious and fully pedantic
In one respect yes, in another respect no
>red
>in attribute Jesus is 100 percent human
So he is God, as John 1:1 says, so it is also his attribute 100 percent God
You are treating God as an adjective
There is not some arbitrary "percentage" of Jesus' composition that is "50% human and 50% God" or "100% human and 0% God."
Jesus is just God and human at the same time and these don't conflict or dilute each other. That's literally it.
I thought the mystery was why God was three persons not how could God be three persons
It's more like "mystical" than "mysterious"
It's no more mysterious than any other contradiction. In a contradictions mystery can be phrased anyway that it doesn't make sense. If all one has to do is say that the Olympic gods share an essence, and all of a sudden it is monotheism, then there is a problem with the logic. But that is the logic trinitarians apply to justify there only being a mystery where a contradiction remains.
Oh well I personally find that argument about polytheism to be very interesting and appealing but its application to real polytheistic mythology is difficult because they are usually opposed to each other
What's the big difference?
God is omnipotent.
God "became flesh and dwelt among us"
Because God is omnipotent, there is no contradiction. He can do anything he wants, including turning creative mode on and off at will. He has infinite console commands at his disposal.
I'm content with not understanding it. I know Jesus is both God and man. How exactly those two combine, how the hell should I or anyone else know? Our knowledge and comprehension as humans are limited.
Imagine the fully man and fully god shits that slid out of his fully gaped butthole
Jesus never called himself god, because it was blasphemy, they only start calling him god in John.
Now if Jesus was God.. why would he pray to himself, and recant several times "Oh lord, pass this cup from me."
I could tear the bible in half, and do without the NT but then I am basically israeli, but at this point I don't care. The more I read, the more I find contradictions. Not to mention, Jesus isn't even his name because there was no J in Hebrew, and Christ is a title, which means word of god, I suspect. Everything seems to be the word of god, I guess we should worship everything.
I'm not even trying hard here to debunk it, it's written in plain English.
Its just another bone to chew on to distract from the fact that none of this bullshit matters.
No. Stop ruining the vibe by asking questions. Just drink your fucking communion and eat the fucking Jesus cracker. God, its like these burgers want to be unhappy on purpose.
Picrel or Grillmeier (his magnum opus Christ in Christian Tradition)
http://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=C9ABB71918993BF486614A317C08ABB7
it’s israeli and therefore meant to warp your natural powers of reasoning, yw