Don’t be so ignorant bro, I explained exactly why its an ampiboly and thus logically fallacious to use in one of my previous posts. Scroll up, and read again.
This was your proof:
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).
Since you claim that Jesus (pbuh) was completely human and completely divine, that would not be represented by a circle within a square OR a square within a circle. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you believe that God became the man, not God was inside the man.
How did I imply that?
Then recast this statement please:
Christ was neither merely a human or merely God, and that’s why you’re argument is based on a false dilemma.
Great. Is this discussion going to continue running in circles? At this stage I have the right to say “because God wills it to be” as a response to your above comment. Your whole argument attacking the fact that God cant will his divine nature to unite with a human body, was based on the fact that its ridiculous to assume that God can will a square-circle – and since that analogy has been discredited you have nothing else to lean on, except the issue of whether God voluntarily laying aside the EXERCISE of his divine attributes means he ultimately has to cease to be who he is - and that is discussed below. (Dont bother pursuing your square-circle any further, if you're convinced that its still a valid logical example to discredit the incarnation, then so be it bro ive said all i can say in relation to that).
Yes, this is what these sorts of conversations usually come down to. Scroll up to see how you haven't yet brushed aside the square-circle analogy, but even if you think you have, let me ask you this:
If someone asks you if God can will his divine nature to unite with a human body, you would say, yes? So if someone asks you if God can will to destroy Himself, what would you say? Or if God can will to create something more powerful than Himself? In my opinion these are ALL incoherent questions, but I'd be interested to note how you answer them, since they are all asking "can God will his divine nature away"?
I would find no fault if they walked into the room and said “wow, this new shape is essentially a full square inside of a full circle without one’s characteristics being imposed on the other”. Just as "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily form," Colossians 2:9 - without one nature transmuting the other, or ones characteristics compromising the otehr.
Oh ok, this changes everything then. So you believe that God was contained inside Jesus the man, and the two essences are completely separable and distinguishable. That's not like saying that God became man, or that Jesus was completely man and completely God simultaneously though. So you're veering away from orthodox belief or is this what your denomination believes?
That’s the whole point buddy. Describing God’s nature and defining God’s nature are two completely different things. God’s attributes (being the adjectives that they are) can describe God’s nature, but they do not define what he essentially is. The fact his attributes distinguish him are again irrelevant – attributes are a consequence of his nature, since his nature is unique obviously his attributes are unique. He is omnipotent because he is God, but he is not God because he is omnipotent - The fact there is only one God allows us to conclude from the fact he is omnipotent that He must be God.
Ok so as I said before:
So describe the nature of God without using His attributes.
My analogy proves that the attribute of being able to be “self-propelled” does not define the "thing" as a car. When a car is in park and not moving, the fact this attribute is not being excercised (note: its ability to excercise the attribute is always present), does not take away the fact it is still a car. The fact it is of a car "nature" (lets assume there is car nature) defines the fact it is self-propelled, but the essential act of being self-propelled does not define it as a car because that would mean it is a car sometimes, and other times it is not.
But "self-propelled" is not a defining attribute of the car. A boat or plane are self-propelled as well, but omnipotent is a defining attribute of God, because only God is omnipotent.
omniscience - now the fact the Son chose not to excercise this attribute at certain points during his ministry… does not mean that at those points in time, God ceased to exist
When you claim that God stopped "exercising" one of his attributes you're claiming that God 1) changed 2) became less perfect. Also, omniscience isn't something you flip on and off like a switch, think about what you're saying, you're saying God ceased to be omniscient for a while. That's like saying God ceased to be omnipresent for a while, or all-powerful, or was no longer the Most Merciful in the world.
and we must always remember that although the Son voluntarily chose not to excercise such an attribute, the Father and His Spirit (The Holy Spirit) were in fact omniescent at all times
Which means you've admittedly subjugated albeit temporarily, Jesus to the Father "and His Spirit".
Christ voluntarily chose not to excercise it but in any event we come back to the argument that this does not effect is His essential identity as the One True God.
Choosing to forego omniscience, or eternality, or omnipotence means that God chooses to become less perfect.
No that is a fallacious question to ask, because you’re implying that the incarnation took away from God’s nature.
Then define God's nature without using any of His attributes. You can't use the word "nature" and say it was unchanged without defining it.
Assume that there is such thing as the “fire essence” bro!
You want me to assume the thing that you need to be true to make your analogy hold? There is nothing called a "fire essence" it's a series of molecules being combusted, with an orange or red or blue background depending on what's being burned. Your whole fire analogy is based around the "fire essence" not having changed before the iron is placed in it and after.
So if you can assume certain things for arguments sake then that would be great - because by assuming certain things, we can turn an imperfect natural analogy into the perfect analogy that does not insult logic.
Well, then you might as well ask someone to "assume that God can not be omniscient and still be God". You can't assume what you're trying to conclude. We call that "begging the question".
Is this discussion going to continue running in circles?
Actually I felt we were making some progress.
This topic is about to be locked.
It's up to you, bro.
Peace bros