Christian/Muslim ThreadsWhy wont Muhammed come back at Judgement?Before I respond, let me make one thing very clear. Im not here to use logic to prove the incarnation, indeed I believe it is one of God’s great mysteries. You don’t get it do you? The contradiction in the circle-square analogy (as ridiculous as it is to discuss), is the fact you have taken the characteristics of a square (4 straight sides), and imposed them on the circle – you have REPLACED the circles characteristics with the squares characteristics, and therefore logically speaking the circle can no longer be called a circle because it no longer retains those properties which define a circle, but rather the properties that define a square. Lets say for example and for arguments sake, that omniscience was the sole attribute that defined who God was. If I were to assert, that God at the incarnation took the human attribute of growing in wisdom, imposed it on His nature - in effect substituting that attribute in place of the divine omniscience he previously had (in the same way the four sides were imposed on the circle substituting the curves that initially defined “its” nature as a circular one) and tried to convince you that He was still God merely because He is omnipotent and he can do that, THEN your analogy would be suited. However as you can see from my previous post that’s not what im asserting and that is not what Biblical/Christian theology entails. No aspect of natural revelation can ever adequately describe what exactly happened at the incarnation, but to pursue your circle-square analogy would indeed be logically fallacious because there is no relation whatsoever. I mean, whether you believe/like it or not it’s the omnipotence factor which you really are questioning: “How can God voluntarily accept the limitations provided by the attributes of the human nature he took upon himself, whilst simultaneously retaining, yet laying aside the attributes of His divine nature?”. I mean you almost sound like an atheist arguing against the concept of infinity – “Everything has a cause, and every cause has a cause, how can God exist as an infinite being, there’s no such thing as an uncaused cause?” <- and again the analogies from natural revelation that the atheist could possibly use would be endless. If I had to provide the closest analogy I could from natural revelation, it would be the union between fire and iron. Both unite without mingling, confusion, alteration or transmutation (lets assume the temp. of the fire is lower than irons melting point) – both retain their full properties. But again i pursue the idea that appealing to earthly analogies is not a sufficient procedure to describe the thoughts/actions of an infinite omnipotent being.
I could impose the characteristics of a square to that of a circle and essentially this would create a “new” object (which isn’t really new, its essentially the square which we started with). How about you take the circle and place it in the square. We now have an object with both curves and straight sides without the fact that one has to compromise the other. (God im sick of trying to discuss this ridiculous and irrelevant square-circle analogy) Well first of all your terminology is incorrect. He didn’t “give up” His divine attributes in the sense that they were no longer present or like he left them up in heaven or anything like that. His divine attributes were always there ready to be willingly excercised if he so wished (and as I explained above – the gospel accounts explictly show Christ at specific times excercising his divine attributes – which is how we come to this conclusion of the hypostatic union in the first place). Obviously as I explained above, if God replaced his divine attributes that define his divinity – with the human attributes that define a human, and I still tried to maintain that He was God – that’s when your analogy would be suited and that’s when you could sensibly use logic to disprove what im saying. Exactly! They are perpetually essential, however in the case of Christ they ere not perpetually excercised due to the fact he voluntarily chose not to exercise them during his ministry on earth. Never has, never will. Unless a circle inside a square or a square inside a circle can constitute as a "square-circle". :roll: I hope this post has proved the fallacy in your question. For curioisites sake however, I want to provide an example inherent in the passage I was reading in my Bible before I came online. I was reading the passage where Christ was telling His disciplies that he had the power to lay down His life, and he had the power to raise it up again, and that no one takes His life from Him, but he lays it down of his own accord. Also, when Pontius Pilate implied to Christ that Christs life was in his hands, Christ direclt responds by saying that Pilate has no power over him unless it had been given to him from above. Again, when Peter drew the sword to defend Christ as the soldiers came to arrest him, Christ emphasized that he could allow for 12 legions of angels to come and defend him, but he is voluntarily in submission to His persecutors for a very good reason – so that the scriptures can be fulfilled. That’s a very basic example of the fact that Christ voluntarily chose not to exercise the power he had to stop the proceeding events from occurring, although this power was and is eternally present with Him. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame