/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>"If Christ incarnated in the "fullness of God" then the effect of his birth would have been the instantaneous reduction of the universe to ashes, because the finite world can never fully accommodate the infinite One, only partially."

God has no limits and is not bound to our human sense of logic and rationality.

Although honestly, Muslims are such a brainwashed people that trying to persuade them is almost futile.

>>669643

The Son of Man chose to limit himself to the weakness of flesh and willingly chose to suffer with us things like hunger, tiredness, pain and etc.

He could have chosen not to become human, but he had to become a man in order to be the sacrifice of all our sins through which we would all be redeemed forever.

I would have mumbled something like this.

>>669646

>God has no limits and is not bound to our human sense of logic and rationality.

Sure, we can't fully understand him because our minds are finite, but he is still comprehensible to us in part, via reason, analogies and his revelation and so forth. If he was a total mystery and beyond our understanding then there wouldn't be anything to discuss about him. But he made us in his image and gave us reason to begin to grasp him

>>669651

That doesn't really explain the issue

>>669653

Right, there are things we can understand about God, and things we cannot ever understand about God, which is why having faith is important.

If God totally made sense to man, and we could understand everything God says and does perfectly, we'd be worshiping a man made God within a man made religion which is what Muslims do.

>>669657

>Right, there are things we can understand about God, and things we cannot ever understand about God, which is why having faith is important.

Understanding this point isn't the same as fully understanding God in all ways. There's probably a reasonable explanation somewhere in the history/theology books. But your answers are kind of a copout, imagine you pressed a mormon about how God is one being, one spirit, yet mormonism also teaches that he was previously a man, and that other men can become gods and control their own planets….and the mormon just said "well we can't know everything about God, he's mysterious, we're not like so-and-so…."

>If God totally made sense to man, and we could understand everything God says and does perfectly, we'd be worshiping a man made God within a man made religion which is what Muslims do.

Just cause they lack the trinity doesn't mean they know God fully…

>>669663

>Understanding this point isn't the same as fully understanding God in all ways.

The only man in history to fully understand God in all ways is Jesus Christ.

>But your answers are kind of a copout, imagine you pressed a mormon about how God is one being, one spirit, yet mormonism also teaches that he was previously a man, and that other men can become gods and control their own planets….and the mormon just said "well we can't know everything about God, he's mysterious, we're not like so-and-so…."

The difference is that with Mormonism there's literally no evidence whatsoever that anything they believe is true at all, whereas there's plenty of historical accounts of Jesus Christ's life, and the fact that the apostles were willing to endure torture and eventual death over believing Christ's resurrection shows that there has to be some semblance of truth within the story. Whereas Mormonism started off with a freemason receiving "visions" from golden egpytian plates (that, conveniently, only he could read) and "seer stones". Pure witchcraft.

>Just cause they lack the trinity doesn't mean they know God fully…

The true God is the God of the Trinity. Anything else is a false heresy.

I'm getting a sense that this is a larp thread.

>>669667

That's fine for your personal understanding, some people are more fideists, some lean more towards rationality.

But if someone asks you to explain the trinity or the atonement you can't just throw your hands up and say "God is beyond our understanding" and expect that to amount to anything….

>>669668

????

>>669673

>But if someone asks you to explain the trinity or the atonement you can't just throw your hands up and say "God is beyond our understanding" and expect that to amount to anything….

I said, "God has no limits", in response to your Muslim buddy saying God CAN'T incarnate himself into the finite world, which is a ridiculous thing to say. All is possible through God, and if God couldn't do something, it wouldn't be God.

People need to stop trying to rationalize God as if God is some sort of math problem they can solve.

>>669684

>All is possible through God, and if God couldn't do something, it wouldn't be God.

Do you believe God could create multiple uncreated Gods, clones of the Trinity? Could he take pleasure in sinning and doing evil? Could he lie to his prophets and lie to his apostles? Could he be both Allah and the Trinity, meaning both Islam and Christianity are true at the same time? Or do you think these things are logical absurdities and impossible for God to do?

I think these things are impossible because they contradict his nature and contradict all logic. Even if God "wanted" to do these things, they would not happen.

>>669697

God "could" do anything, God "could" make it so that we all must become trannies in order to be saved, or make it so that we must all commit human sacrifices in order to gain his good will. And yet, he hasn't. I'd rather focus on what God HAS done and what God HAS promised us, because getting caught up in "what-if's" is pointless. You're getting caught up in what YOU think God should be rather than what God has shown us. I could sit here and dream up the most logical, rational God in existence but it wouldn't come close to what God actually IS, because my human faculty is inherently flawed. We are fallen beings, so this notion that God has to make sense to us based on our particular version of reason is rather ridiculous. How could you possibly know what God can and can't do, or would and wouldn't do? All you can rely on is what God has revealed.

>>669706

Could God create multiple uncreated Gods that are perfectly the same as he is in every aspect?

Think about this for a few seconds.

>>669706

>How could you possibly know what God can and can't do, or would and wouldn't do? All you can rely on is what God has revealed.

If you have no sense of what is true then you would never, in a million years be able to discern true revelation from false revelation regarding God's nature, properties and will. I don't need a revelation to tell me God is good and God is just and God is omnipotent. In fact if a revelation told me the opposite I would throw it out immediately. Just like if a math book told me a triangle actually has 4 sides I would throw it out, I don't need to run any experiments, or go verify it by looking for 4-sided triangles in the world, it would be false by logic alone.

In order for us to detect true revelation something of the truth has to be within us already, we are made in his image and have faculties made to grasp him, we have a sense of what God entails naturally, just like we have a sense of right and wrong, we have a sense that creation points to him as creator, prior to any revelation. I think Paul talked about this.

>>669708

God can do ANYTHING. It doesn't matter if it's logical to us or not.

>>669712

>If you have no sense of what is true then you would never, in a million years be able to discern true revelation from false revelation regarding God's nature, properties and will.

And where do you think you get your sense of what is true? You get it from God, therefore you need GOD to even begin to comprehend the truth about God's nature and will.

> I don't need a revelation to tell me God is good and God is just and God is omnipotent.

Yes you do, or else you would live like the Pagans throughout history, multiple "gods", magic, nature/sun worship. That's man's natural state without revelation. By your logic the world should have been full of rational monotheists from the beginning of time (because we all have truth and logic inside of us, right?) and yet it wasn't.

>In order for us to detect true revelation something of the truth has to be within us already.

God gives us the ability to see the truth, but that won't stop us from denying God and indulging in our sinful nature. Once again, look at Pagan Pre-Christian societies. If it weren't for the revelations of God we would have continued down the sinful path without worry.

Revelations are inherently necessary in order to understand God's will, I don't even really know how you could deny that.

>>669708

Shitty hypothetical.

No one embraces tritheism.

Maybe mormons.

>>669738

The hypothetical instantly debunks the idea that God could "possibly" do anything, he can't make multiple uncreated Gods the same as him in every respect.

He can't do lots of things, but that has no bearing on his omnipotence because those things are either illogical or contradict the his good nature.

>>669731

>And where do you think you get your sense of what is true? You get it from God, therefore you need GOD to even begin to comprehend the truth about God's nature and will.

Of course, I get it from God and revelation builds on it and clarifies it. But we all have a sense of what God is like prior to revelation.

>God can do ANYTHING. It doesn't matter if it's logical to us or not.

Already disproved this, you just seem to ignore it. God can not, not even hypothetically, create multiple "uncreated" Gods that are the exact same as him. God can not desire to do evil or enjoy doing evil.

God isn't just some nebulous "power" he has a nature and an order.

>Yes you do, or else you would live like the Pagans throughout history, multiple "gods", magic, nature/sun worship.

Because we suppress the truth that is in us, just like we suppress our conscience. Some pagans were monotheists, some were polytheists. Some were closer to the truth than others, this was done without revelation. Even Paul says we have the law written in our hearts and creation points us towards God's attributes and powers: "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." This is why some pagans were wiser than others and stumbled upon monotheism.

>>669668

Yeah there is some false-flagging here for sure.

>>669747

If God can't do any possible thing, then how could God be omnipotent? The definition of omnipotent is literally, "having unlimited power; able to do anything." If God does not have unlimited power, and God does not have the ability to do anything, then God is not God.

>>669749

>But we all have a sense of what God is like prior to revelation

Nonsense, if we all have a sense of what God is like, why did the native americans do rain dances rather than praying? Why did the egyptians build elaborate pyramids and temples, rather than churches and synagogues? Why did Christ need to even come in the first place to save us from our sins, if we "have a sense of what God is like prior to revelation, then we wouldn't NEED redemption through Jesus Christ, because we would already have a "sense" of what to do.

>Aready disproved this, you just seem to ignore it.

You didn't disprove anything, you just put forth a hypothetical that can't be truly answered by us (because we're not God), and then you act as if this is "proof" of God's fallibility, when in reality this is just YOUR falible, human interpretation of a truly omnipotent, indescribably powerful God that you cannot ever fully understand. It literally says in the bible, Matthew 19:26, "But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.". So was Jesus lying here?

Luke 1:37, "For nothing will be impossible with God.".

Job 42:2, "I know that You can do all things, And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted."

So now I have to ask, do you believe in the God of the Bible, or some Pagan nonsense?

>Some were closer to the truth than others, this was done without revelation

Being "closer" to the truth does not matter, they were still wrong, and if it were not for revelation, they would continue to be wrong. God is the father, the son, and the holy spirit, everything else is heresy.

>This is why some pagans were wiser than others and stumbled upon monotheism.

But if God had not revealed himself to them, they would have never stumbled upon Christianity, which is the only true religion. All other forms of monotheism are false.

It's pretty obvious now that you're not truly a Christian.

>>669783

>If God can't do any possible thing, then how could God be omnipotent?

>"possible thing"

Now you're getting closer to what omnipotence means for God, and further away from "God can do ANYTHING". The "possible" qualifier means that there are impossible things that God can't do, by definition. For example he can't create multiple uncreated-Gods like himself, because there can be only one infinite being, otherwise they would restrict each other; and an uncreated God can't be created by definition. Somethings are impossible because they contain logical contradictions.

God can't save all people and simultaneously damn them all to hell. God can't make a promise and then break it. Somethings contradict logic, somethings contradict what goodness means.

So it's impossible for God to do evil and it's impossible for God to enjoy partaking in evil.

>Nonsense, we dont have a sense of God without revelation

Then Paul lied when he told the Romans: "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."

>Luke 1:37, "For nothing will be impossible with God.".

This is in relation to earthly possibilities/miracles, like making an infertile woman pregnant, making the blind see, etc. This doesn't mean God can do miracles that contradict his nature outside creation.

>Job 42:2, "I know that You can do all things, And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted."

This means God can do all things that he sets out to do, within his purposes in creation, and no other force exists to stop him.

>>669823

You're still assuming that God is bound to physical traits of the universe, when God is beyond our universe and beyond logic as we understand it. Jesus Christ himself said with God all things are possible, so once again, was he lying? You can come up with all of these absurd scenarios of God doing things he wouldn't do but that doesn't mean that he's incapable of doing these things.

>"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."

Perceiving of God and knowing God are two entirely different things. You originally said, "I don't need a revelation to tell me God is good and God is just and God is omnipotent", which is incorrect because if you only perceived of God, you would only perceive good, you wouldn't know it. I'm sure the Mayans that were cutting out peoples hearts thought they were doing "good" and they only perceived of God. Galatians 4:8, "Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods." This shows that it is possible to perceive God, but not know him, and if you don't know God, you will worship beings that are not God, which pagans did for thousands of years before revelations made it so that they knew God.

>This doesn't mean God can do miracles that contradict his nature outside creation.

So then what laws are God beholden to, and what is the source of those laws? Is there a God above God that creates the laws that God cannot contradict?

>within his purposes in creation

So God cannot do anything outside of the physical universe? Who controls God outside of his creation?

>>669824

Just because you can twist the definition of omnipotent doesn't mean omnipotent doesn't mean what it means. By that logic we could just say any word could mean anything in order to win an argument. And the notion that we shouldn't "complain" when others do wrong because God could possibly do wrong is nonsensical, God could easily do wrong by us if he wanted to but he doesn't because God loves us. That's the foundation of Christianity, if God were bound by logic, he would logically send us all to hell because we deserve it. And yet he doesn't because he loves us.

> If God does not have unlimited power, and God does not have the ability to do anything [logically possible], then God is not God.

So God's God is logic, because God must obey Logic? Should we then worship Logic instead?

>>669829

You seem intent on proving that God is fallible, which lead me to believe that you aren't a Christian. Sorry if you were offended.

>>669708

>create

>uncreated

That's not how adjectives work. You might as well be speaking an unintelligible language. Grrwyihe hjil xvkeus?

>>669849

>You seem intent on proving that God is fallible, which lead me to believe that you aren't a Christian. Sorry if you were offended.

I'm intent on showing that your idea of omnipotence isn't accurate, because it assumes illogical-absurdities can be actualized.

>you can't know good without revelation cause the Mayans did bad stuff and thought it was good

The law is written in our hearts and we have access to knowledge of good and evil to an extent, they aren't totally alien to us.

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree. Gen 3:22

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them. Romans 2:14-15

> Is there a God above God that creates the laws that God cannot contradict?

It is his nature that he expresses, his nature is good so his purposes are good. It's not possible for him to will evil and take joy in doing evil, that would contradict who he actually is (contradict his essence).

>. Jesus Christ himself said with God all things are possible,

all things that are logically possible; and secondly all things that are good.

Somethings are clearly logically impossible.

Again I'll ask you, if you think God can do all things, then say yes or no: Is it possible that God could create multiple, separate uncreated Gods equal in power to him? Yes or no.

is it possible that God could partake in evil deeds and take joy in doing them? yes or no.

>>669856

The language is perfectly understandable and grammatically correct, the problem is it can't be done, not even by God, because its logically impossible, it involves a contradiction.

So when Jesus said God can do all things, did that include God making himself change? Can he unmake and destroy himself? Can God corrupt his own nature with sin? No, because this contradicts his eternal and timeless nature.

Can God do evil and enjoy doing evil? This is a perfectly coherent question, the answer is No, because evil contradicts his nature.

God can't do all things in the sense that YOU think.

>>669708

If He did, then They would be Him; that is if They were truly the same as He in every aspect.

>>669864

>if he did

>if he created uncreated things

Just say No he can't do that lol.

>>669865

I'm not going to make claims as to what God can and cannot do, for I am just a lowly servant of Him and it is not my place to make such statements.

>>669865

I don't think God can do impossible things because by definition if He did them they could not be impossible. It's like the whole 'can he create a rock too heavy for him to lift' gotcha question.

>>669871

Yes somethings are impossible to do, i.e God is immutable and absolute, he does not change, so its not even possible for him to change.

God is not man, that he should lie,

or a son of man, that he should change his mind.

Has he said, and will he not do it?

Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?

>>669858

>I'm intent on showing that your idea of omnipotence isn't accurate, because it assumes illogical-absurdities can be actualized.

If omnipotence does not mean "able to do anything", then you're saying God is not able to do anything. If God cannot do anything, how is he God?

>The law is written in our hearts and we have access to knowledge of good and evil to an extent, they aren't totally alien to us.

"To an extent", meaning, "partially". If we can only "partially" understand good and evil, we do not know good and evil. If I only partially understand a subject, I do not know that subject. If I knew how to fly a plane, to an extent, the chances of me crashing the plane are significantly heightened. If I KNOW how to fly a plane, the chances of me crashing the plane are significantly lowered.

If I know of God "to an extent", I'll have a lot of misconceptions that will cause me to do things God does not want me to do. If I know of God period, I'll know what not to do. The difference is the revelations that assure me of exactly what God wants me to do.

>And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil

AS one of us, meaning, LIKE one of us, or as you said "to an extent" one of us. Our partial understanding of good and evil is not knowing good and evil, so until revelations we did not truly know God, we only had a partial view of what God could be.

>It is his nature that he expresses, his nature is good so his purposes are good. It's not possible for him to will evil and take joy in doing evil, that would contradict who he actually is (contradict his essence).

Once again you're assuming what God can and can't do, but you're not God so how can you possibly know?

>all things that are logically possible and secondly all things that are good.

That is not what Jesus said, he said ALL things. Don't twist scripture to fit in with your particular worldview.

>Somethings are clearly logically impossible.

In our minds, but we do not have the mind of an omnipotent God.

So to answer your nonsense questions again, YES, ALL things are possible through God, and human logic is not above God. We are not God, so we can not comprehend this, but our comprehension does not define God, God defines US.

>>669849

>Just because you can twist the definition of omnipotent doesn't mean omnipotent doesn't mean what it means.

I'm not twisting the definition, it's just you don't seem to be aware that there are several definitions of which the one I've expounded has commonly been held when thinking and talking about God (I can't remember the person probably some famous philosopher or theologian).

>By that logic we could just say any word could mean anything in order to win an argument.

It seems to me that this is literally what would be permissivebased on (i would say 'the logical conclusion of' but get the feeling you might get triggered by the phrase) your definition of omnipotence, given that your definition entails logical absurdities which are literally by their definition meaningless, and from which no fruitful discussion could arise whatsoever.

>And the notion that we shouldn't "complain" when others do wrong because God could possibly do wrong is nonsensical, God could easily do wrong by us if he wanted to but he doesn't because God loves us. That's the foundation of Christianity,

Don't know if you misunderstood me, but your use of the word wrong in your post implies you're talking about wrong as in moral evil. This is irrelevant to what I was saying and wasn't touching on that at all. Rather it's only that there's no reason to complain given what your saying God can do, by virtue of it being inherently contradictory, logically impossible and literally nonsensical (in the sense that it actually makes no sense) literally meaningless.

>if God were bound by logic, he would logically send us all to hell because we deserve it. And yet he doesn't because he loves us.

Because he loves us, yes, but also on my understanding (which may be limited) this is where the doctrine of susbstituonary atonement comes in (developed by Calvin afaik, whombst being a lawyer looked at everything with with logical scrutiny as lawyers are trained to do). That is to say, we deserve to all go to Hell and be punished out of logical necessity of God being perfectly just - however because he loves us he provided the repentant sinner with a scapegoat in Christ, who bore the punishment of sin on the cross for us (I don't necessarily subscribe to this, I'm still to explore atonement theories but its my understanding they all entail their own problems/mysteries, I think it might just come down to which you find most palatable in terms of these).

>>669849

>So God's God is logic, because God must obey Logic? Should we then worship Logic instead?

I don't have an excellent answer to this, as Im not so clued up on all this stuff, but I would hazard a guess someone might answer that, like goodness (God isn't beholden to goodness, he is goodness itself, God isn't (only) loving, he is love itself, like God isn't just, God isn't logical, he is the foundation of logic (in a sense, he is logic - see the Word, the logos, the reason, the first principle) itself. No, our logic is not infallible, and faith will always be required, but our rationality, ability to reflect and reason is what is,maybe along with other things, generally considered to be what 'made in the image of God' refers to. So in a sense, to awenser your question, we actually do worship logic, by the fact we worship God, just like we do indeed worship goodness, love, etc etc itself (i.e. God) (and to add, when i say this, obvipusly im not referring to worshiping some cold, non personal concept, you know the God we worship so i dont need to describe thid to you, but then again maybe I'm getting getting into heretical territory here idk) (also phone posting so sorry for typos and if the thread has already moved past these points take's ages to phonepost smh)

>>669884

> (God isn't beholden to goodness,

To clarify on this statement I should add to say 'isn't beholden to goodness as an abstract concept above/purpose of himself (like when you suggested maybe we should worship logic given God submits to it on television assumption it is an abstract concept outside of himself). Really, (and this isn't easy to make clear on a chan post) in a sense he is beholden to it in the sense that it is part of His nature, his essence, he is logic and goodness etc. Himself and he cannot contradict his nature

>>669890

Respect for having the humility to post this m8! Just keep reading and learning, it maybe the case that some more learned souls than you and I hold the position that you do (or were fighting the corner of), but like I say I simply cannot see how it make's sense, personally, so am inclined not to.

>>669895

>concept above/purpose

Should say 'above/outside of'

Phoneposting smh

Christ could have imcarnated himself everywhere as being omnipotent, but he chose to incarnate at one point. Theyre basically asking the old "can God create a rock so heavy he cant lift it" question.

>How do you persuade muslims…

You dont really. They basically emotionally abused into staying in Islam. If they apostise they will face ostracism from their whole commumity, amd even violent retaliation. You can't argue it out of them.

>>669890

>but what I've posted in the thread makes sense to me,

Finally, to add, sure, it may make sense up to a point, but not to troll you with the word logic (i see that youre not teasy about this anyway) you really do have to take any reasonings and arguments to the or logical conclusion's to see if they really do hold up an are consistent and hold up to scrutiny. And like I and another anon were pushing, as far as we can see the view you were pushing didn't, and literally ended in logical absurdities, non-sense and by extension meaninglessness. And you don't operate day to day on those principles, days which God sustains and upholds the existence of and, if you're a Christian who believes in God, why would you operate as if God did (allow the possibility for himself to be contradictory, logically absurd and non sensical) when, sorry to repeat myself, but it doesn't make sense? Food for thought for you and me

It is no surprise that a muslim's understanding of divinity or omnipotence is "God big candle huehuehue"

1 John 4:1-3

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

>ITT: People arguing against the Trinity

>>669643

He's misunderstanding the term "begotten" as it pertains to Jesus as the "only and unique son" versus the usual context of "born."

Take them through some of the trinitarian sections of the old testament, the ones where The Word of God speaks and The Spirit of God is vexed, and those.

>>669972

>He's misunderstanding the term "begotten" as it pertains to Jesus as the "only and unique son" versus the usual context of "born."

The qualifier itself doesn't really matter, the problem is it only applies to the second person of the trinity and can never apply to the fullness of the Godhead itself.

God (in his fullness) is unbegotten, full stop.

The Son (in his fullness) is begotten, full stop.

One of these things is not like the other.

>>670027

The only resolution I see is to say that "unbegotten" doesn't apply to the Godhead itself, but only to the Father.

The Godhead (trinity) is neither begotten nor unbegotten, but transcending both qualifiers. But this would make no sense, because the trinity would be greater than its parts, but the persons of the trinity are not parts of a whole, they are supposed to all fully be the whole, fully be God in his totality.

Anyone know how to unravel this knot??

please respond

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07706b.htm

Christ has two Natures, there done. Seriously any argument anyone could possibly make against Christianity was answered in the first 600 years. Everything after is just repeating the same bs we already delt with, it is eternal butthurt

Muslim anon here. It's irrelevant whether it's possible or not. Because even if it was possible it would not be necessary. God does not need to "incarnate" in order to save us or forgive us our sins. He can do so by his will alone without dependance on some contingent historical event.

>>669643

Can’t an all powerful God be anything He wants?

>>669643

It is called understanding the Trinity.

We can not know the mystery of the incarnation through intellect.

St. Paul puts it nicely in Ephesians 3:1-9, give it a read and see how he stresses that only revelation can make sense of it.

Jesus Christ is the Word of God in the flesh, it's absurd to claim you know how it came to be.