Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never been solved.

Religions > Atheism > Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never been solved.

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Truth Hunter"
Date:	31 Jul 2005 04:32:18 PM
Object:	Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never been solved.

Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never been
solved.
The belief that Jesus was fully man and fully God has never been shown
to be consistently defined, explained or defended. E. P. Sanders, in
The Historical Figure of Jesus, sums it up: "It lies beyond my meager
abilities as an interpreter of dogmatic theology to explain how it is
possible for one person to be 100 per cent human and 100 per cent
divine, without either interfering with the other." (p. 134).
Here then are four conceptual problems with an incarnate God: 1) God is
necessarily an uncreated being. Humans are essentially created beings.
Therefore Jesus is both created and uncreated; 2) God is necessarily
omniscient-he knows everything. Human beings are not omniscient
beings. Therefore, Jesus is both an omniscient and also not an
omniscient being. But in the New Testament Jesus didn't act
omniscient. He said he didn't know the time of his own return; 3) God
is a morally perfect being, and as such could not be tempted to do
wrong. Human beings however, can be tempted to do wrong, and are
imperfect. Therefore, Jesus could not be tempted, nor do any wrong, and
yet we're told that he was tempted to do wrong. 4) God is
omnipresent, but Jesus as a human being, was not.
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq-tr.html
Bumper Sticker
DIVINE INSANITY
God killed himself on the cross to save his own creation fro=ADm his own
wrath !
.

User: "Dale"
Title: Re: Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never been solved.	31 Jul 2005 06:45:56 PM

"Truth Hunter" <hunter1234222@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1122845538.098106.217060@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never been
solved.

The belief that Jesus was fully man and fully God has never been shown
to be consistently defined, explained or defended. E. P. Sanders, in
The Historical Figure of Jesus, sums it up: "It lies beyond my meager
abilities as an interpreter of dogmatic theology to explain how it is
possible for one person to be 100 per cent human and 100 per cent
divine, without either interfering with the other." (p. 134).

Here then are four conceptual problems with an incarnate God: 1) God is
necessarily an uncreated being. Humans are essentially created beings.
Therefore Jesus is both created and uncreated; 2) God is necessarily
omniscient-he knows everything. Human beings are not omniscient
beings. Therefore, Jesus is both an omniscient and also not an
omniscient being. But in the New Testament Jesus didn't act
omniscient. He said he didn't know the time of his own return; 3) God
is a morally perfect being, and as such could not be tempted to do
wrong. Human beings however, can be tempted to do wrong, and are
imperfect. Therefore, Jesus could not be tempted, nor do any wrong, and
yet we're told that he was tempted to do wrong. 4) God is
omnipresent, but Jesus as a human being, was not.

Like O'Brien said in 1984, it's no good to try to fool yourself into
believing he's holding up five fingers, you have to _believe_ he's holding
up five fingers. It's not easy to become sane.
Or it could be like a zen koan. A zen koan is supposed to break you out of
the prison of logic.
.

User: "VO"
Title: Re: Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never been solved.	31 Jul 2005 05:57:26 PM

"Truth Hunter" <hunter1234222@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1122845538.098106.217060@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never been
solved.
The belief that Jesus was fully man and fully God has never been shown
to be consistently defined, explained or defended. E. P. Sanders, in
The Historical Figure of Jesus, sums it up: "It lies beyond my meager
abilities as an interpreter of dogmatic theology to explain how it is
possible for one person to be 100 per cent human and 100 per cent
divine, without either interfering with the other." (p. 134).
Here then are four conceptual problems with an incarnate God: 1) God is
necessarily an uncreated being. Humans are essentially created beings.
Therefore Jesus is both created and uncreated; 2) God is necessarily
omniscient-he knows everything. Human beings are not omniscient
beings. Therefore, Jesus is both an omniscient and also not an
omniscient being. But in the New Testament Jesus didn't act
omniscient. He said he didn't know the time of his own return; 3) God
is a morally perfect being, and as such could not be tempted to do
wrong. Human beings however, can be tempted to do wrong, and are
imperfect. Therefore, Jesus could not be tempted, nor do any wrong, and
yet we're told that he was tempted to do wrong. 4) God is
omnipresent, but Jesus as a human being, was not.
Jesus said that while here, he had no more powers or foreknowledge than any
other man.
DUHH
.

User: "Uncle Vic"
Title: Re: Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never been solved.	31 Jul 2005 08:46:27 PM

Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet VO (here@overthere.net)
made the light shine upon us with this:

Jesus said that while here, he had no more powers or foreknowledge
than any other man.

Except that the bible says he could heal sickness with prayer, walk on
water, raise people from the dead, feed multitudes with one basket of
cakes, magically turn water into wine, cast "devils" and "demons" out of
diseased people to heal them, and rise bodily into the sky unaided by
flotation devices. If you didn't have your head so far up your *****, you'd
laugh too.
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
http://home.comcast.net/~vickman/
______________
'03 XVS650A
'04 XVS1100
.

User: "bob young"
Title: Re: Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never beensolved.	03 Aug 2005 12:02:05 AM

VO wrote:

The most likely scenario:
100% fable and/or myth

Here then are four conceptual problems with an incarnate God: 1) God is
necessarily an uncreated being. Humans are essentially created beings.
Therefore Jesus is both created and uncreated; 2) God is necessarily
omniscient-he knows everything. Human beings are not omniscient
beings. Therefore, Jesus is both an omniscient and also not an
omniscient being. But in the New Testament Jesus didn't act
omniscient. He said he didn't know the time of his own return; 3) God
is a morally perfect being, and as such could not be tempted to do
wrong. Human beings however, can be tempted to do wrong, and are
imperfect. Therefore, Jesus could not be tempted, nor do any wrong, and
yet we're told that he was tempted to do wrong. 4) God is
omnipresent, but Jesus as a human being, was not.

Jesus said that while here, he had no more powers or foreknowledge than any
other man.

DUHH

User: "jw"
Title: Re: Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never been solved.	31 Jul 2005 08:16:21 PM

x-no-archive: yes
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 15:57:26 -0700, "VO" <here@overthere.net> wrote:
copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved. NO portion of this
article can be reproduced in any form anywhere else without express
written consent of the author

"Truth Hunter" <hunter1234222@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1122845538.098106.217060@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never been
solved.

The belief that Jesus was fully man and fully God has never been shown
to be consistently defined, explained or defended. E. P. Sanders, in
The Historical Figure of Jesus, sums it up: "It lies beyond my meager
abilities as an interpreter of dogmatic theology to explain how it is
possible for one person to be 100 per cent human and 100 per cent
divine, without either interfering with the other." (p. 134).

Here then are four conceptual problems with an incarnate God: 1) God is
necessarily an uncreated being. Humans are essentially created beings.
Therefore Jesus is both created and uncreated; 2) God is necessarily
omniscient-he knows everything. Human beings are not omniscient
beings. Therefore, Jesus is both an omniscient and also not an
omniscient being. But in the New Testament Jesus didn't act
omniscient. He said he didn't know the time of his own return; 3) God
is a morally perfect being, and as such could not be tempted to do
wrong. Human beings however, can be tempted to do wrong, and are
imperfect. Therefore, Jesus could not be tempted, nor do any wrong, and
yet we're told that he was tempted to do wrong. 4) God is
omnipresent, but Jesus as a human being, was not.

Jesus said that while here, he had no more powers or foreknowledge than any
other man.

DUHH

Quote, please!
How about the day He was preaching to a "full house", and the friends
of the paralytic took the tiles off the roof, creating a hole in the
roof, and then lowered their paralyzed friend on a mat to the ground
right in front of Jesus.
Jesus looked at the man, said, "My son, your sins are forgiven!" and
the Pharisees WENT NUTS.
They shrieked, "Who can forgive sins? Only YHWY can forgive sins!"
(God Almighty)
Jesus, however, asked, "What is more difficult, to say, "your sins are
forgiven?" Or to say, "Get up and walk!' ?
But so that all men will know that I possess that POWER, I say to you,
"Rise up! Take up your bed, and walk! "
jw
.

User: "bob young"
Title: Re: Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never beensolved.	03 Aug 2005 12:03:03 AM

"jw

"Truth Hunter" <hunter1234222@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1122845538.098106.217060@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never been
solved.

The belief that Jesus was fully man and fully God has never been shown
to be consistently defined, explained or defended. E. P. Sanders, in
The Historical Figure of Jesus, sums it up: "It lies beyond my meager
abilities as an interpreter of dogmatic theology to explain how it is
possible for one person to be 100 per cent human and 100 per cent
divine, without either interfering with the other." (p. 134).

Here then are four conceptual problems with an incarnate God: 1) God is
necessarily an uncreated being. Humans are essentially created beings.
Therefore Jesus is both created and uncreated; 2) God is necessarily
omniscient-he knows everything. Human beings are not omniscient
beings. Therefore, Jesus is both an omniscient and also not an
omniscient being. But in the New Testament Jesus didn't act
omniscient. He said he didn't know the time of his own return; 3) God
is a morally perfect being, and as such could not be tempted to do
wrong. Human beings however, can be tempted to do wrong, and are
imperfect. Therefore, Jesus could not be tempted, nor do any wrong, and
yet we're told that he was tempted to do wrong. 4) God is
omnipresent, but Jesus as a human being, was not.

Jesus said that while here, he had no more powers or foreknowledge than any
other man.

DUHH

Lovely myth, must have had the crowds Ooooh'ing and aaa'ing as they sat
listening to their wandering storyteller.
............no Tv or radio in those days!

Jesus looked at the man, said, "My son, your sins are forgiven!" and
the Pharisees WENT NUTS.

They shrieked, "Who can forgive sins? Only YHWY can forgive sins!"
(God Almighty)

Jesus, however, asked, "What is more difficult, to say, "your sins are
forgiven?" Or to say, "Get up and walk!' ?

But so that all men will know that I possess that POWER, I say to you,
"Rise up! Take up your bed, and walk! "

jw

User: "jw"
Title: Re: Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never been solved.	03 Aug 2005 04:12:16 PM

x-no-archive: yes
On 3 Aug 2005 00:03:03 -0500, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>
wrote:
copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved. NO portion of this
article can be reproduced in any form anywhere else without express
written consent of the author

"jw

"Truth Hunter" <hunter1234222@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1122845538.098106.217060@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never been
solved.

The belief that Jesus was fully man and fully God has never been shown
to be consistently defined, explained or defended. E. P. Sanders, in
The Historical Figure of Jesus, sums it up: "It lies beyond my meager
abilities as an interpreter of dogmatic theology to explain how it is
possible for one person to be 100 per cent human and 100 per cent
divine, without either interfering with the other." (p. 134).

Here then are four conceptual problems with an incarnate God: 1) God is
necessarily an uncreated being. Humans are essentially created beings.
Therefore Jesus is both created and uncreated; 2) God is necessarily
omniscient-he knows everything. Human beings are not omniscient
beings. Therefore, Jesus is both an omniscient and also not an
omniscient being. But in the New Testament Jesus didn't act
omniscient. He said he didn't know the time of his own return; 3) God
is a morally perfect being, and as such could not be tempted to do
wrong. Human beings however, can be tempted to do wrong, and are
imperfect. Therefore, Jesus could not be tempted, nor do any wrong, and
yet we're told that he was tempted to do wrong. 4) God is
omnipresent, but Jesus as a human being, was not.

Jesus said that while here, he had no more powers or foreknowledge than any
other man.

DUHH

Lovely myth,

If you can't follow the story line, don't comment.
The comment to which I was referring was that Jesus never claimed to
have supernatural powers.
He did.
jw
snip
.

User: "Muffin"
Title: Re: Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never been solved.	31 Jul 2005 11:29:37 PM

In article <0qtqe1pm9uarevtqme2ijqemrsfesfmiqo@4ax.com>, jw
<jw<no>@yoo.hoo> wrote:

How about the day He was preaching to a "full house", and the friends
of the paralytic took the tiles off the roof, creating a hole in the
roof, and then lowered their paralyzed friend on a mat to the ground
right in front of Jesus.

Jesus looked at the man, said, "My son, your sins are forgiven!" and
the Pharisees WENT NUTS.

They shrieked, "Who can forgive sins? Only YHWY can forgive sins!"
(God Almighty)

Jesus, however, asked, "What is more difficult, to say, "your sins are
forgiven?" Or to say, "Get up and walk!' ?

But so that all men will know that I possess that POWER, I say to you,
"Rise up! Take up your bed, and walk! "

jw

Actually you have grossly distorted what in fact the story says. It is -
of course partly mythological anyway. Your statement that "the Pharisees
went NUTS" is grossly incorrect:
For a start the people you refer to were named as Scribes and not as Pharisees.
Their question in fact was perfectly legitimate and one that they kept to
themselves. The crucial verses read:
"But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in
their hearts, Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive
sins but God only?"
THAT IS they did NOT voice their thoughts
The Passage contails a number of claims - one being that Jesus was capable
of mind reading/telepathy.
The second is that he saw himswelf as described by the title son of man
rather than "son of God" (which was the late Augustinian title used by the
emperors and only later applied to Jesus - after his death)
Thirdly he claimed that as son of man he was entitled to forgive sins.
The Scribes would have had a right to voice their complaints that Jesus
had broken Judaic religious law. But here they behaved with discretion
and politieness
What the passage in fact demonstrates is the fact that the writer "Mark"
was heavily under the influence of Paulism and Paulist theology when he
wrote the final version of his gospel
And also that you are ruled by a "comic book" type version of the Bible
+++++++++++
1 � And again he entered into Capernaum after some days; and it was
noised that he was in the house.
2 And straightway many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no
room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door: and he preached
the word unto them.
3 And they come unto him, bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne
of four.
4 And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they
uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let
down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay.
5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son,
thy sins be forgiven thee.
6 But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in
their hearts,
7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
8 And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so
reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things
in your hearts?
9 Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be
forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?
10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to
forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)
11 I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine
house.
12 And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them
all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We
never saw it on this fashion.
KJV
.

User: "jw"
Title: Re: Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never been solved.	01 Aug 2005 03:42:15 AM

x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 15:29:37 +1100,

(Muffin) wrote:
copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved. NO portion of this
article can be reproduced in any form anywhere else without express
written consent of the author

In article <0qtqe1pm9uarevtqme2ijqemrsfesfmiqo@4ax.com>, jw
<jw<no>@yoo.hoo> wrote:

You are indeed an idiot with NO comprehension of the Jewish classes in
that time.
"Scribe" was a status, a "position", a "job title". "Pharisee was a
religious "party", as in Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran.
The "scribes" were those who took notes, and who did the actual
copying of the old, worn out scrolls onto new parchment.
So the scribes would have been the students, employees, and
'secretaries" for the Pharisees, AND of the same "religious party."
You PRETEND to know MUCH; you know LITTLE.

Their question in fact was perfectly legitimate and one that they kept to
themselves. The crucial verses read:

Different translations state it differently.
The point WAS that Jesus KNEW their thoughts.

"But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in
their hearts, Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive
sins but God only?"

THAT IS they did NOT voice their thoughts

in SOME translations; that is, those you chose to quote.
AGAIN, you strain at gnats and SWALLOW camels.

The Passage contails a number of claims - one being that Jesus was capable
of mind reading/telepathy.

Other passages can be used to make that point. But if you believe the
whole thing is a MYTH, what are you arguing about?
You ARGUE for the sake of ARGUING.
You BELIEVE NONE of it!

The second is that he saw himswelf as described by the title son of man
rather than "son of God"

Nonsense. He described Himself in several different ways depending on
the context.
In the case, "Son of man", He chooses to identify with mankind. In the
case of "Son of God" (Peter's confession) or "God" (Thomas's
confession), He uses OTHER titles.
(which was the late Augustinian title used by the

emperors and only later applied to Jesus - after his death)

AGAIN, you lie, demon.

Thirdly he claimed that as son of man he was entitled to forgive sins.

The Scribes would have had a right to voice their complaints that Jesus
had broken Judaic religious law. But here they behaved with discretion
and politieness

What the passage in fact demonstrates is the fact that the writer "Mark"
was heavily under the influence of Paulism and Paulist theology when he
wrote the final version of his gospel

What your commentary indicates is that you have no clue about what you
are reading, mainly because you have allowed demons to eat your brain.
jw
snip
.

User: "Santolina chamaecyparissus"
Title: Re: Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never been solved.	31 Jul 2005 05:38:39 PM

Truth Hunter wrote:

It lies beyond my meager abilities to know what "divine" is before we
can even contemplate the human/divine issue. Further, I am
consistently told by believers that there is no way in principle that I
can ever come to an understanding of "divine".
.

User: "bob young"
Title: Re: Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never beensolved.	01 Aug 2005 12:30:03 AM

Santolina chamaecyparissus wrote:

Truth Hunter wrote:

The solution is simple in the extreme
[scan down]
"M Y T H O L O G Y'
.

User: "fred"
Title: Re: Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never been solved.	31 Jul 2005 06:25:15 PM

Truth Hunter wrote:

Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never been
solved.

The belief that Jesus was fully man and fully God has never been shown
to be consistently defined, explained or defended. E. P. Sanders, in
The Historical Figure of Jesus, sums it up: "It lies beyond my meager
abilities as an interpreter of dogmatic theology to explain how it is
possible for one person to be 100 per cent human and 100 per cent
divine, without either interfering with the other." (p. 134).

Here then are four conceptual problems with an incarnate God: 1) God is
necessarily an uncreated being. Humans are essentially created beings.
Therefore Jesus is both created and uncreated; 2) God is necessarily
omniscient-he knows everything. Human beings are not omniscient
beings. Therefore, Jesus is both an omniscient and also not an
omniscient being. But in the New Testament Jesus didn't act
omniscient. He said he didn't know the time of his own return; 3) God
is a morally perfect being, and as such could not be tempted to do
wrong. Human beings however, can be tempted to do wrong, and are
imperfect. Therefore, Jesus could not be tempted, nor do any wrong, and
yet we're told that he was tempted to do wrong. 4) God is
omnipresent, but Jesus as a human being, was not.

Being able to believe in Jesus Christ is not simply an act of your will
in conjunction with your reasoninging ability. Only Jesus' Holy Spirit
can open your mind to who Jesus is. So if you resist the Spirit's
convictions as to who Jesus is, as many people do, then you are burning
the only bridge by which you can put your faith in Jesus.
John 3:16
Revelation 3:20

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq-tr.html

Bumper Sticker

DIVINE INSANITY
God killed himself on the cross to save his own creation fro=ADm his own
wrath !

User: "Uncle Vic"
Title: Re: Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never been solved.	31 Jul 2005 08:50:16 PM

Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet fred (clarma1@gmail.com) made
the light shine upon us with this:

Silly Fred. There's no such thing as ghosts.
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
http://home.comcast.net/~vickman/
______________
'03 XVS650A
'04 XVS1100
.

User: "Llanzlan Klazmon"
Title: Re: Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never been solved.	31 Jul 2005 09:51:32 PM

Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com> wrote in
news:Xns96A4BFC282BA8vicman@216.196.97.136:
<SNIP>

Silly Fred. There's no such thing as ghosts.

Yeah but what about ghosts with holes in them ;-).
Klazmon.
.

User: "bob young"
Title: Re: Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never beensolved.	01 Aug 2005 12:42:02 AM

Uncle Vic wrote:

Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet fred (clarma1@gmail.com) made
the light shine upon us with this:

Silly Fred. There's no such thing as ghosts.

....Aaaaah but our simple ancestors thought there were ghosts everywhere.
In parts ofd Africa they still do.
Evil Spirits too.
Then they invented gods to chase them away, starting the largest 'con' ever
devised by man
Mind you, it has made a lot of people very rich

--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department

http://home.comcast.net/~vickman/
______________

'03 XVS650A
'04 XVS1100

User: "Santolina chamaecyparissus"
Title: Re: Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never been solved.	31 Jul 2005 08:38:00 PM

fred wrote:

Being able to believe in Jesus Christ is not simply an act of your will
in conjunction with your reasoninging ability. Only Jesus' Holy Spirit
can open your mind to who Jesus is.

Ah, so if I don't believe it is the fault of the H.G. For your sake I
hope you haven't just uttered an unpardonable sin.

So if you resist the Spirit's
convictions as to who Jesus is, as many people do, then you are burning
the only bridge by which you can put your faith in Jesus.

What's His problem? He's the Holy Ghost, I'm just a piddly little
atheist who's had too many beers. What, is He afraid of a little hard
work?
.

User: "bob young"
Title: Re: Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never beensolved.	01 Aug 2005 12:40:03 AM

fred wrote:

Truth Hunter wrote:

Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never been
solved.

The belief that Jesus was fully man and fully God has never been shown
to be consistently defined, explained or defended. E. P. Sanders, in
The Historical Figure of Jesus, sums it up: "It lies beyond my meager
abilities as an interpreter of dogmatic theology to explain how it is
possible for one person to be 100 per cent human and 100 per cent
divine, without either interfering with the other." (p. 134).

Here then are four conceptual problems with an incarnate God: 1) God is
necessarily an uncreated being. Humans are essentially created beings.
Therefore Jesus is both created and uncreated; 2) God is necessarily
omniscient-he knows everything. Human beings are not omniscient
beings. Therefore, Jesus is both an omniscient and also not an
omniscient being. But in the New Testament Jesus didn't act
omniscient. He said he didn't know the time of his own return; 3) God
is a morally perfect being, and as such could not be tempted to do
wrong. Human beings however, can be tempted to do wrong, and are
imperfect. Therefore, Jesus could not be tempted, nor do any wrong, and
yet we're told that he was tempted to do wrong. 4) God is
omnipresent, but Jesus as a human being, was not.

A sort of 'start with nothing', use 'nothing' as a guide and then believe
hard enough and eventually 'nothing' will become 'something'
THAT is the 'wisdom' of religionists

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq-tr.html

Bumper Sticker

DIVINE INSANITY
God killed himself on the cross to save his own creation fro�m his own
wrath !

User: "jw"
Title: Re: Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never been solved.	31 Jul 2005 08:17:09 PM

x-no-archive: yes
On 31 Jul 2005 16:25:15 -0700, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved. NO portion of this
article can be reproduced in any form anywhere else without express
written consent of the author

Truth Hunter wrote:

Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never been
solved.

The belief that Jesus was fully man and fully God has never been shown
to be consistently defined, explained or defended. E. P. Sanders, in
The Historical Figure of Jesus, sums it up: "It lies beyond my meager
abilities as an interpreter of dogmatic theology to explain how it is
possible for one person to be 100 per cent human and 100 per cent
divine, without either interfering with the other." (p. 134).

Here then are four conceptual problems with an incarnate God: 1) God is
necessarily an uncreated being. Humans are essentially created beings.
Therefore Jesus is both created and uncreated; 2) God is necessarily
omniscient-he knows everything. Human beings are not omniscient
beings. Therefore, Jesus is both an omniscient and also not an
omniscient being. But in the New Testament Jesus didn't act
omniscient. He said he didn't know the time of his own return; 3) God
is a morally perfect being, and as such could not be tempted to do
wrong. Human beings however, can be tempted to do wrong, and are
imperfect. Therefore, Jesus could not be tempted, nor do any wrong, and
yet we're told that he was tempted to do wrong. 4) God is
omnipresent, but Jesus as a human being, was not.

"Well put!"
jw

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq-tr.html

Bumper Sticker

DIVINE INSANITY
God killed himself on the cross to save his own creation fro�m his own
wrath !

User: ""
Title: Re: Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never been solved.	06 Aug 2005 03:37:38 PM

Truth Hunter wrote:

Dear Truth Hunter:
This touches upon what most forms of Christianity miss as it helps to
show who Christ was. Scripture does clear this matter up but not how
they think or would like it to. Please allow me to explain below;

Here then are four conceptual problems with an incarnate God:
1) God is necessarily an uncreated being. Humans are essentially
created beings. Therefore Jesus is both created and uncreated;

This isn't what it seems, Jesus of Nazareth was "created" human through
His human mother Mary and God's Spirit. Mary is not now nor ever was
divine! Nor did she give birth to a God! This ideology is not in
scripture at all, anywhere. In Matthew 1:21 we are told that "...she
will bring forth a Son...", her son and God's Son yes but human, how
could a God child suckle on a human breast and the human mother still
live? Ex.33:20 "But He said, 'You cannot see My face; for NO MAN shall
see Me, and live.'". If He was not human what need would He have to eat
at all? In Is. 7 it says that , "Curds and honey He shall eat, that He
may know to refuse the evil and choose the good.", while this is
metaphorical in use it also shows that the Christ child would need
sustenance therefore human. Matthew also quotes Isaiah 7:14 when he
writes that, "His name will be called Immanuel which is translated,
'God with us'." (more on that in a minute, so relax there jw.).

2) God is necessarily omniscient-he knows everything. Human beings are > =

not omniscient beings. Therefore, Jesus is both an omniscient and also > no=
t an omniscient being. But in the New Testament Jesus didn't act

omniscient. He said he didn't know the time of his own return;

"For only the Father Who sent Me knows." Very true! Mark 13:32

3) God is a morally perfect being, and as such could not be tempted to > =

do wrong. Human beings however, can be tempted to do wrong, and are

imperfect. Therefore, Jesus could not be tempted, nor do any wrong, and
yet we're told that he was tempted to do wrong.

He was tempted by all things. Heb. 2:18

4) God is omnipresent, but Jesus as a human being, was not.

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq-tr.html

Bumper Sticker

DIVINE INSANITY
God killed himself on the cross to save his own creation fro=ADm his own
wrath !

Many a true word is spoken in jest, for this is a true statement. Our
Lord Jesus Christ was the God of the OT, the one Who created all things
and without Whom nothing was created that was created. (paraphrased
from John 1:3) He then had compassion and love for His creation and
made the ultimate sacrifice (John 15:13, "Greater love has no one than
this, than to lay down one's life for his friends.") for them that they
may not suffer the second death. Only human blood could pay the price
of human sin, Christ emptied Himself of His Godly powers (Phil.2:5-8)
and became human in order to pay that price.
The God of the OT (Christ) became human in order to "walk among us;
Immanuel", and this was not the first time He had done so. Gen. 18:2,
16-18. Also He excepted tithes from Abram in Gen. 14:18-20, and Paul
shows who Melchizedek was/is in Heb. 7:1-3.
Note: In verse 6 of Phil.2 the word 'robbery' is used instead of
saying; "something to be held onto, to be equal".
Christ is King
Peter
.

User: "jw"
Title: Re: Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never been solved.	31 Jul 2005 05:39:02 PM

x-no-archive: yes
On 31 Jul 2005 14:32:18 -0700, "Truth Hunter"
<hunter1234222@yahoo.com> wrote:
copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved. NO portion of this
article can be reproduced in any form anywhere else without express
written consent of the author

You are talking about matters of faith that your vain human
speculation cannot unravel.
I give you two choices:
1. believe
2. don't believe
I also find your moniker puzzling, to say the least. You CLAIM that
you are "hunting truth", yet all I see you doing is attacking
Christianity.
When do you intend to start presenting the other side? The
PRO-Christianity side?
All I've seen thus far is propaganda.
jw
snip
.

User: "bob young"
Title: Re: Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never beensolved.	01 Aug 2005 12:32:03 AM

"jw

You are talking about matters of faith that your vain human
speculation cannot unravel.

I give you two choices:

1. believe
2. don't believe

I also find your moniker puzzling, to say the least. You CLAIM that
you are "hunting truth", yet all I see you doing is attacking
Christianity.

When do you intend to start presenting the other side? The
PRO-Christianity side?

All I've seen thus far is propaganda.

He is probably an 'ex Christian' like me, trying to put a
religious 2 + 2 together and finding it makes nothing close to '4'

jw

snip

User: "Dale"
Title: Re: Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never been solved.	31 Jul 2005 06:23:05 PM

"jw @yoo.hoo>" <jw<no> wrote in message
news:ukkqe19r1egm5b0v9l711tqos9v50bni9e@4ax.com...
[...]

You are talking about matters of faith that your vain human
speculation cannot unravel.

I give you two choices:

1. believe
2. don't believe

I also find your moniker puzzling, to say the least. You CLAIM that
you are "hunting truth", yet all I see you doing is attacking
Christianity.

When do you intend to start presenting the other side? The
PRO-Christianity side?

All I've seen thus far is propaganda.

You are a hypocrite. You need to get right with God before He casts your *****
into the Lake of Fire.
.

User: "Chris Johnson"
Title: Re: Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never been solved.	31 Jul 2005 06:13:40 PM

It seemed he was seeking (or hunting) truth by asking these questions.
He claims to be unable to understand it, and it's difficult to present
a side you do not understand. Seeking truth does not necessarily mean
presenting all sides of an argument, regardless of the validity, for
the sake of maintaining the appearance of balance (as is common
nowadays). Ideally you would present your best arguments and someone on
the other side presents theirs, and through a frank exchange of ideas
the positions are refined, hopefully leading to an agreement as to the
truth.
However, you have not presented the other side. You've presented two
options, one of which ("1. believe") is morally reprehensible to a
rational individual, and the other of which is simply the default
state. Your response indicating that his "vain human speculation cannot
unravel" is a copout. How dare you berate him for not presenting the
Christian side, when you yourself cannot present one?
Also, I'm confused by your heading:

copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved. NO portion of this
article can be reproduced in any form anywhere else without express
written consent of the author

By making a post in a public forum, don't they become inherently
quotable? I'm no expert at copyright law, but I'm not sure that's
valid. By writing it you gain copyright (and don't have to post a
copyright notice), which means we have to attribute quotes to you
already. But can you actually forbid me from quoting you? That doesn't
seem to make much sense.
.

User: "Uncle Vic"
Title: Re: Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never been solved.	31 Jul 2005 08:38:47 PM

Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Chris Johnson
(effigies@gmail.com) made the light shine upon us with this:

You're right, it doesn't, not on Usenet where it is standard etiquette to
quote what you are responding to, in order to keep the conversation moving
in an orderly fashion. John seems to have become a disrupter in this
sense, and he has thus lowered his posting status to that of "troll".
Besides, he's a nasty religious nutball.
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
http://home.comcast.net/~vickman/
______________
'03 XVS650A
'04 XVS1100
.

User: "jw"
Title: Re: Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never been solved.	31 Jul 2005 11:20:55 PM

x-no-archive: yes
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:38:47 -0500, Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com>
wrote:
copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved. NO portion of this
article can be reproduced in any form anywhere else without express
written consent of the author

Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Chris Johnson
(effigies@gmail.com) made the light shine upon us with this:

You're right, it doesn't, not on Usenet where it is standard etiquette to
quote what you are responding to,

You AGAIN are merely demonstrating that you don't understand my
copyright.
Not my problem.
jw
in order to keep the conversation moving

in an orderly fashion. John seems to have become a disrupter in this
sense, and he has thus lowered his posting status to that of "troll".

Besides, he's a nasty religious nutball.

User: "jw"
Title: Re: Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never been solved.	31 Jul 2005 08:13:00 PM

x-no-archive: yes
On 31 Jul 2005 16:13:40 -0700, "Chris Johnson" <effigies@gmail.com>
wrote:
copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved. NO portion of this
article can be reproduced in any form anywhere else without express
written consent of the author

It seemed he was seeking (or hunting) truth by asking these questions.
He claims to be unable to understand it, and it's difficult to present
a side you do not understand. Seeking truth does not necessarily mean
presenting all sides of an argument, regardless of the validity, for
the sake of maintaining the appearance of balance (as is common
nowadays). Ideally you would present your best arguments and someone on
the other side presents theirs, and through a frank exchange of ideas
the positions are refined, hopefully leading to an agreement as to the
truth.

However, you have not presented the other side. You've presented two
options, one of which ("1. believe") is morally reprehensible to a
rational individual,

In your opinion.
MY OPINION is that any rational person, considering ALL available
information, WILL believe in the Christian God.
It is my position-- educated on both sides-- that only those who are
irrational, and NOT open to ALL available information-- are
anti-Christian.
and the other of which is simply the default

state. Your response indicating that his "vain human speculation cannot
unravel" is a copout.

For those who don't get it, perhaps.
How dare you berate him for not presenting the

Christian side, when you yourself cannot present one?

That I have chosen to not present my side does not mean I am incapable
of doing so.
As I have stated MANY times, I save my POV for the "friendly" crowds;
that is, NOT NECESSARILY those who are eager for my POV, but at least
those who are wiling to listen with open minds.
This is not that crowd.

Also, I'm confused by your heading:

By making a post in a public forum, don't they become inherently
quotable?

You didn't read the copyright very carefully. I said, "no portion can
be reproduced in any form ANYWHERE ELSE [[[ that is, except in here
]]].
I'm no expert at copyright law,
I can see that.
but I'm not sure that's

valid.

Last I checked, my copyright is valid. And I don't wish to debate it
here. As a university trained, many times published
journalist-author, I have tried to keep abreast. And the last I was
aware, ALL a writer needs to do to protect his property ON THE WEB is
to attach a prominent copyright notice to it.
You may archive it all you like, you may cut and paste it all you
like, as long as it stays in the news groups.
But if I find one of my quotes, or an article from in here on Joe
Blow's Web Site 6 months from now, I have legal grounds to prosecute
Joe Blow.
By writing it you gain copyright (and don't have to post a

Not true.
MANY authors write and post their material for FREE, unobstructed
distribution. This is done in one of several ways, depending on the
motives and wishes and needs of the author.
By not signing it to begin with
by not attaching a copyright to it.
HOWEVER, it is MY desire to maintain control over my "copy." I
therefore attach a PROMINENT copyright notice to it "just to be safe."
which means we have to attribute quotes to you

already.

READ VERY CAREFULLY:
You do not have to attribute my quotes to me IN HERE.
If you want to use quotes of mine on your web page, or ELSEWHERE, you
need
1. my permission
2. to attribute it to me.
But can you actually forbid me from quoting you?
In here, I have NO intent on forbidding you from quoting me.
Somewhere else, yes. You may not quote me ELSEWHERE without my
permission, unless you want to run the risk of a plagiarism lawsuit.
That doesn't

seem to make much sense.

Be that as it may, I could likely list you a dozen other laws that
"don't make much sense."
in the meantime, feel free to quote me, cut and paste, IN HERE.
You are NOT free to quote me ELSEWHERE, unless you ask -- and get
permission -- first,
which SEVERAL have done.
I'm not a bad guy, really, I just want control over my intellectual
property.
Don't *I* have THAT right?
jw
.

User: "bob young"
Title: Re: Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never beensolved.	01 Aug 2005 12:36:02 AM

"jw

It seemed he was seeking (or hunting) truth by asking these questions.
He claims to be unable to understand it, and it's difficult to present
a side you do not understand. Seeking truth does not necessarily mean
presenting all sides of an argument, regardless of the validity, for
the sake of maintaining the appearance of balance (as is common
nowadays). Ideally you would present your best arguments and someone on
the other side presents theirs, and through a frank exchange of ideas
the positions are refined, hopefully leading to an agreement as to the
truth.

However, you have not presented the other side. You've presented two
options, one of which ("1. believe") is morally reprehensible to a
rational individual,

In your opinion.

MY OPINION

Your opinion is of very low value as you believe in an imaginery god.
You can't get more banal than that

is that any rational person, considering ALL available
information, WILL believe in the Christian God.

ROFL. you got ot the wrong way around AGAIN!

It is my position-- educated on both sides-- that only those who are
irrational, and NOT open to ALL available information-- are
anti-Christian.

you mean like Einstein?
I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a
will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who
should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension; such
notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls."
[Albert Einstein]

and the other of which is simply the default

state. Your response indicating that his "vain human speculation cannot
unravel" is a copout.

For those who don't get it, perhaps.

How dare you berate him for not presenting the

Christian side, when you yourself cannot present one?

That I have chosen to not present my side does not mean I am incapable
of doing so.

As I have stated MANY times, I save my POV for the "friendly" crowds;
that is, NOT NECESSARILY those who are eager for my POV, but at least
those who are wiling to listen with open minds.

This is not that crowd.

Also, I'm confused by your heading:

By making a post in a public forum, don't they become inherently
quotable?

You didn't read the copyright very carefully. I said, "no portion can
be reproduced in any form ANYWHERE ELSE [[[ that is, except in here
]]].

I'm no expert at copyright law,

I can see that.

but I'm not sure that's

valid.

Last I checked, my copyright is valid. And I don't wish to debate it
here. As a university trained, many times published
journalist-author, I have tried to keep abreast. And the last I was
aware, ALL a writer needs to do to protect his property ON THE WEB is
to attach a prominent copyright notice to it.

You may archive it all you like, you may cut and paste it all you
like, as long as it stays in the news groups.

But if I find one of my quotes, or an article from in here on Joe
Blow's Web Site 6 months from now, I have legal grounds to prosecute
Joe Blow.

By writing it you gain copyright (and don't have to post a

Not true.

MANY authors write and post their material for FREE, unobstructed
distribution. This is done in one of several ways, depending on the
motives and wishes and needs of the author.

By not signing it to begin with
by not attaching a copyright to it.

HOWEVER, it is MY desire to maintain control over my "copy." I
therefore attach a PROMINENT copyright notice to it "just to be safe."

which means we have to attribute quotes to you

already.

READ VERY CAREFULLY:

You do not have to attribute my quotes to me IN HERE.

If you want to use quotes of mine on your web page, or ELSEWHERE, you
need
1. my permission
2. to attribute it to me.

But can you actually forbid me from quoting you?

In here, I have NO intent on forbidding you from quoting me.

Somewhere else, yes. You may not quote me ELSEWHERE without my
permission, unless you want to run the risk of a plagiarism lawsuit.

That doesn't

seem to make much sense.

Be that as it may, I could likely list you a dozen other laws that
"don't make much sense."

in the meantime, feel free to quote me, cut and paste, IN HERE.

You are NOT free to quote me ELSEWHERE, unless you ask -- and get
permission -- first,

which SEVERAL have done.

I'm not a bad guy, really, I just want control over my intellectual
property.

Don't *I* have THAT right?

jw

User: "Muffin"
Title: Re: Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never been solved.	31 Jul 2005 11:16:10 PM

In article <g4tqe19df9t29nh9c3lvfjhf7luek3tgk0@4ax.com>, jw
<jw<no>@yoo.hoo> wrote:

I'm not a bad guy, really, I just want control over my intellectual
property.

jw

You are a VERY BAD GUY INDEED
What intellectual property
the porn stories?
Let us just not go down that whole path John
It - like you
IS BORING
.

User: "Uncle Vic"
Title: Re: Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never been solved.	31 Jul 2005 08:40:11 PM

Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet jw <jw (no>@yoo.hoo) made the
light shine upon us with this:
<snip>
What a blowhard.
<PLONK!>
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
http://home.comcast.net/~vickman/
______________
'03 XVS650A
'04 XVS1100
.

User: "Santolina chamaecyparissus"
Title: Re: Four conceptual problems with an incarnate God that have never been solved.	31 Jul 2005 08:43:06 PM

jw wrote:

That I have chosen to not present my side does not mean I am incapable
of doing so.

As I have stated MANY times, I save my POV for the "friendly" crowds;
that is, NOT NECESSARILY those who are eager for my POV, but at least
those who are wiling to listen with open minds.

This is not that crowd.

Wow, what a *****. Imagine if Jesus and Saul/Paul shared your
cowardice.
.

Page 1 of 2

Post reply

Cthulhu Chick Tract down because of legal problems
Economists to put price tag on global problems
Re: Huge problems with XP boxes @MCC
Problems I foresee
OT: Iraq's problems passed on
More Problems with IDIOT LIBERAL Dan Rather's Wacky Fake 'evidence' about GW Bush:
"I've got a lot of problems with you people..."
OT: Voting Problems in Ohio Spur Call for Overhaul

What problems would we have to deal with if the religious right disappeared
Bush Tries to Hide Truth of Environmental Problems
Atheists and Evolvers Have Reading Comprehension Problems
Kicking Yang's ***** Snorting Fairy ***** ==> LEFT WING PROBLEMS!
The governement is to blame for the problems in N.O.
. am having some problems with my psychiatrist, and i don't know which of us is wrong. she recently told me, when i was having a crisis and was totally unglued, how frustrating it is for her to treat me.
OT: Burgeoning problems divide Davos delegates

NEWER

pg.3585 pg.2749 pg.2106 pg.1612 pg.1232 pg.940 pg.716 pg.544 pg.412 pg.311 pg.234 pg.175 pg.130 pg.96 pg.70 pg.50 pg.35 pg.24 pg.16 pg.10 pg.6 pg.3 pg.1

OLDER