Christian/Muslim ThreadsWhy wont Muhammed come back at Judgement?humble_guest - Before you start thinking of answering this reply, i hope you read the response in its entirety first - for a very good reason and that is - i think the further i read into your response, the more it became apparant to me what the obstacle hindering your rational acceptance of this concept really was - and it was only towards the end of my reply that i was able to address that. You’re now drowning in the fallacy of Straw mans. I have stressed quite a few times that Christ’s divinity never ceased or parted from his humanity for a single moment. His deity didn’t transform into a human nature, it simply took up and co-existed in perfect unity with his humanity – without mingling, alteration, or transmutation. (since the square-circle involves all 3 it cannot be used as a comparison to the incarnation.) You cant picture a simple circle inside a square or a square inside a circle? Your square-circle analogy is a false analogy! Although you may in a sense say its two essences combined into one, its such an absurd and paradoxical example that in a sense you can also say its one essence being transformed into another – it’s logically falicious to use because its an amphiboly!! I think my iron-fire union is more appropriate and relevant since it doesn’t allow for the latter and apparently contradictory statement (of one essence transforming into another by having its properties REPLACED by the other) to co-exist with the former statement (of two essences combining into one). And strictly speaking Christs divinity didn’t “combine into one” with his humanity, they simply co-existed just as the circle can co-exist with the square without having one shape impose its properties on the other shape (circle inside a square - or square inside a circle). Uh-OH – ive finally realized the key (and logically fallacious) presupposition that underlies your whole entire argument! Bro I want you to concentrate very deeply with me now, because you’re now delving into a somewhat philosophical issue - God’s attributes don’t define WHO/WHAT he is, they define whats unique to Him because of WHAT/WHO he is – so the fact certain attributes were voluntarily laid aside (although they never ceased to exist at Christs disposal) does not affect His identity as the one true God!!! For example, I have a chair. What is a chair? I could define this chair by saying it is a wooden base supported by 4 wooden sticks at the four corners of this base etc etc. However according to your reasoning, we would define a chair according to its attributes - saying for example that it is “something you sit on”. Why is this logically fallacious? Because that would imply that every time the chair is not being sat on – it is not a chair. But we all know this sounds ridiculous – and that’s exactly how ridiculous your reasoning is. Lets consider some things. A key attribute unique to God (yet not defining God) – He is eternal. Christ stepping into the realms of time and space, does not contradict the idea He was and is eternally existent. Lets look at another attribute relevant to Christ’s ministry - God cannot suffer, however we maintain that Christ felt every bit of the excruciating pain that was inflicted upon him due to the humanity he voluntarily took upon himself. His divinity never suffered, His humanity suffered – but we say that Christ had a dual nature, so if His divinity was always present, what was actually going on? Well I resort to the more relevant and more appropriate analogy of the iron-fire. Take a piece of iron and put in fire, you have two essences uniting without mingling, confusion, or alteration, without one exchanging or compromising its properties with the other. Take a sledge hammer, and start banging the crap out of that piece of iron whilst its in the fire. The iron distorts, the iron is being inflicted, yet the fire is unaffected by this act, yet maintains its presence with the iron. I hope now you can truly understand what the Hypostatic union entails, and see why your arguments: a) involving false analogy (a pereplexing ampiboly) and b) based on a logically fallacious presupposition, cannot to the rational mind present a logical contradiction to what happened at the incarnation, if that logical mind were also to accept the existence of a complex and infinite, omnipotent being. “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh” 1 Timothy 3 Peace bro |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame