Jesus is the God-Man.
Is Jesus God?
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
Jesus is the God-Man.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
VERSUS
I, for one, say that no triangle can have more or less than three sides; it's impossible "with man" for a triangle to have more or less than three sides, and, just the same, it is impossible "with God" for a triangle to have more or less than three sides. Also, I like that you called the triangle's vertices "points", though, technically, a triangle has a few more points than just three (in case you did not mean the vertices).
I, for one, say that it is impossible--even "with God"--for something that is "not fitting the definition of a triangle" to be a triangle.
Now, that 'all' (in 'all-knowing') cannot rationally be taken as inclusive of absolutely every thing, since there are some things God cannot know, such as the false proposition, 'Some triangles are quadrilateral'.
Not sure which poster, or which argument, you are referring to, here. But (so long as I've got my thinking cap on) you'll never find me (for one) saying something like "a four-sided triangle is conceivable", since, as far as I'm concerned, the phrase, 'four-sided triangle', is without a referent--meaningless. The phrase, "A four-sided triangle is conceivable", is not only not a false premise, but it's not even a premise, at all. It is neither true nor false; it is meaningless. Now, a phrase I did use, which is perfectly meaningful, is the phrase, "the false proposition that some triangles have more than three sides". That phrase is the name of a particular false proposition, which particular false proposition is that phrase's referent.
Here are some things that are conceivable:
- the phrase, 'four-sided triangle'*
- the phrase, 'three-sided triangle'
- the word, 'triangle'
- a three-sided triangle
- a triangle with no more than three sides
- a triangle
*Note that, in this list, I wrote "the phrase, 'four-sided triangle'", and that I very deliberately did not write "a four-sided triangle". The phrase, 'three-sided triangle', is the name of a thing: namely, a three-sided triangle (a.k.a. a triangle). The phrase, itself, is just as conceivable as the thing named by it. Now, a phrase like 'four-sided triangle', which is not the name of any thing, is just as conceivable as a phrase like 'three-sided triangle', which is the name of some thing.
- Apples are like oranges. For one thing, both are fruits. Also, both are foods. Also, both have flavor. Etc.
- Apples are, indeed, comparable to oranges--that's why your saying, "we're comparing apples with oranges", is not meaningless.
- God's mind isn't like ours? Let's see, then: our mind is rational, so that must mean that God's mind is irrational?? Frightening thought!
- We don't understand God's mind? After what you already said, are you saying it is impossible for us to understand God's mind?
One thing I take to be NOT impossible with God is for God to get us to understand His mind. Of course, it would be quite silly (and, perhaps, somewhat blasphemous) to say that we could (ever!) comprehensively understand God's mind in all the humanly-unfathomable vastness of its entirety. However, if it's impossible for any man or woman to understand God's mind to any degree, whatsoever, then what is the point of the Bible, God's written Word? And, if it is impossible to understand God's mind to any degree, then all our theological discourse in forums, etc., is dismally pathetic in its uselessness.
Without God's mind being, to some degree, in some way(s) like our mind, we are left in a hopelessly deplorable plight. The fact that He was able to write something that we can read alone annihilates the falsehood that God's mind is not like our mind.
Most likely, you have inadvertantly made a decent anti-VanTillian theological argument . . which I applaud.
....unless the man is uneducated/ignorant, and does not know what a triangle is.
So, we can't really say it's "impossible" with man, right?
We can sell an ignorant, gullible man the false proposition.
If you put it that way, of course!
Such a thing isn't a triangle....therefore, it is.....irrelevant
(can't think of the right word).
But He does know it's a false proposition!
Should anyone say a quadrangle is a triangle.....even before that person says it. He also know what this person will say, even before this person thinks of it.
God is Omniscient. He has TOTAL knowledge.
https://www.gotquestions.org/God-omniscient.html
Thank you.
Thus, to say that it is impossible with God about the triangle etc..,
........is all, MEANINGLESS.
Now, you're taking my comment out of context.....or, you're being irrational.
Furthermore, not all men have rational minds, do you agree?
It will be impossible for us to FULLY understand God's mind unless He wills it.
Isaiah 55
8
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord.
9
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts.
I never said or implied any of those things.
God's mind being to some degree and in some ways like our mind......is not the same as saying.....God's mind is like our mind.
How far off is that from musing, "if I'm created to the likeness of God, therefore I'm also a God?"
Perhaps, that could've been the pitfall that Lucifer fell into?
Imagining himself to be equal with God?
Last edited:
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Though (I confess) I really know next to nothing about the Clark-Van Till controversy, I nevertheless believe I know enough to feel safe in saying that I applaud you for applauding!
Let's put it this way: the time I've spent, off and on, over the years, reading and thinking on stuff written by Gordon H. Clark--it has influenced my thinking tremendously. The guy was a rare gem, and I'm thankful for his work. I'm quite a fan of John Robbins, too.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Amen. :thumb:
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Obviously at least some of us can say it's impossible with man, since I've been saying it. If I couldn't really say that it is impossible with man, then you couldn't really be annoyed with me for saying, over, and over, and over, that it is impossible with man.
Whether a man is "uneducated/ignorant, and does not know what a triangle is", has got nothing to do with--no bearing upon--the truth that no triangle can have more or less than three sides. It is impossible, regardless of any circumstance, for a triangle to have any more than or any less than three sides. It is impossible in every sphere, in every circumstance: with man, with God, in a house, with a mouse, in a box, with a fox, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum--it is impossible for a triangle to have more or less than three sides.
Now, am I to understand that as, "Of course, it is impossible with God for a triangle to have more or less than three sides"?
What we need to look into, now, is just what (if anything) you imagine you are referring to by your phrase "such a thing". That is, about what (if any) thing are you affirming that it "isn't a triangle"? If you are referring to the phrase, 'triangle with more or less than three sides', I would agree with you: that phrase isn't a triangle. No phrase is a triangle. Even the phrase, 'three-sided triangle', isn't a triangle. Not even the word 'triangle' is a triangle. There is many a thing that is not a triangle; there are many non-triangles. To which one (if any) of those non-triangles are you referring, here, when you say the phrase, "such a thing"?
You are correct. And, though it can be known that the false proposition, P, is a false proposition, the false proposition, P, itself, is impossible to know.
Should anyone say a quadrangle is a triangle.....even before that person says it. He also know what this person will say, even before this person thinks of it.
Forgive me, but it's not clear to me what you're trying to say, here, beyond stating the fact that God knows all the truth about what so-and-so will do/say at all future times.
And, again, though He is Omniscient, there are things He does not/cannot know, such as false propositions. Here is a false proposition: 'God does not exist'. Its contradictory is the true proposition, 'God exists'. God knows the true proposition, 'God exists'. So, that's one thing God knows. Are you willing to say that God also knows its contradictory, the false proposition, 'God does not exist'? I'm not willing to do so; to do so would be blatantly irrational. So, there, you have two things: two propositions--a true one and a false one. One of those two things God knows, whereas, God does not know the other thing. God knows all about that thing He does not know, that false proposition; in fact, He wrote about it in Psalm 14:1. In fact, He seems to be calling him/her a fool, who imagines that he/she knows, or can know, that God does not exist.
Nothing in your clipping from gotquestions.org is contradictory to what I have been affirming.
It is not clear to me what you are trying to say, here. But, I'll say that the proposition, 'It is impossible for God to know that some triangles are quadrilateral', is not meaningless. It is true. And, what is true is not meaningless. Just the same, what is false is not meaningless. Here is a pair of contradictory propositions:
- God created the heaven and the earth. (TRUE)
- God did not create the heaven and the earth. (FALSE)
Though the former proposition is true, and the latter, being contradictory to the former one, must be false, yet BOTH of them, being propositions, are meaningful, and NEITHER is meaningless. In fact, a phrase such as "meaningless proposition", or "nonsensical proposition", is, strictly speaking, a nonsensical, a meaningless phrase. Here is a short list of meaningless phrases:
- 'meaningless proposition'
- 'proposition that is neither true nor false'
- 'square circle'
- 'quadrilateral triangle'
- 'flying spaghetti monster'
- 'the tooth fairy'
- 'a rock so heavy that God, Who can lift any rock He creates, cannot lift'
- 'the collision of an absolutely unstoppable, unbreakable bullet with an absolutely immovable, impenetrable target'
- 'a dog that is not a dog'
Time constrains me to cut short, for now, my response to what you have written, and I'll try to get back to it soon, in further posts. This stuff's really interesting (to me, at least) to think about, and to dialogue on, and I don't sense a lot of snarly, sneering combativeness coming from you (well, not any, really), so, so long as you're willing to bear with my responses, I'll try to keep up with it.
Last edited:
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
To whom (if anyone) are you referring by your phrase, "this Wise Woman", when you say, "Who is this Wise Woman?"
Where, in the passage you quoted, can we find the phrase, "Wise Woman"? That's right: nowhere. Where, in Proverbs 8, can we find the phrase, "Wise Woman"? That's right: nowhere.
You deny that God is wisdom. You acknowledge that wisdom was with God, and yet you deny that God is that wisdom. Obviously, you'll want to avoid denying that wisdom was with God from all eternity; you'll want to avoid claiming that there was a time when wisdom was not, since you would manifestly be, thereby, blasphemously claiming that there was a time when God was without wisdom. Since God and wisdom were co-eternal, and since you deny that the wisdom--which (according to Proverbs 8 KJV) was with God--was/is God, you are saying that something you consider to not be God, and to not even be a personal being, was eternal. To me, that smacks a bit of how (if I'm not mistaken) some pagans make matter out to be eternal. And, you're making God out to be indebted, for the glory due His works, to something other than God. Proverbs 8:19 "My fruit is better than gold..." Gold is one of God's handiworks--one of God's fruits, if you will. And yet, according to your denial that the wisdom that was with God was/is God, wisdom's fruit is better than God's gold. As you, in your God-blaspheming heresy, would have it, it is not God--but rather, some undefined, impersonal thing other than God--by which kings reign, princes decree justice, princes rule, etc. (Proverbs 8:15-16 KJV).
You would be doomed to fail pathetically, were you to attempt to explain what was the wisdom that was with God, since you deny that God was that wisdom. And, of course, as you and I both know, there's not a snowflake's hope in hell you're going to attempt it. All you're able to do amounts to no more than chanting, over and over and over, meaninglessly: "personification!!!!" It is as meaningless and clownish as how, in every post you write (as though you have some sort of special auto-format key or template just for the purpose), you cheaply chime "Greetings" and "Kind regards" while promulgating your damnable, Christ-hating heresies.
Greetings again 7djengo7,
Proverbs 8:1–5 (KJV): 1 Doth not Wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice? 2 She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths. 3 She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors. 4 Unto you, O men, I call; and my voice is to the sons of man. 5 O ye simple, understand wisdom: and, ye fools, be ye of an understanding heart.
Kind regards
Trevor
She is a woman and by listening to her the simple can understand wisdom.
Proverbs 8:1–5 (KJV): 1 Doth not Wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice? 2 She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths. 3 She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors. 4 Unto you, O men, I call; and my voice is to the sons of man. 5 O ye simple, understand wisdom: and, ye fools, be ye of an understanding heart.
Are you denying that God the Father's spoken word and the wisdom, thoughts, reasoning and purpose behind these spoken words is separate from God the Father, and only contained within a separate person or portion of the Deity, the pre-incarnate second person of the Trinity? When the incarnation occurred was God the Father without His spoken word? I am simply comparing the Word in John 1:1 and Wisdom in Proverbs 8 is similar. It is your claim that “The Word” was a separate being, and yet you deny that “Wisdom” is a separate being.
My position is that both “The Word” John 1:1 and “Wisdom” Proverbs 8 are personifications, and that Jesus is the Son of God because God the Father was the father of Jesus Christ in the conception / birth process Matthew 1:20-21, Luke 1:34-35, John 1:14.
Kind regards
Trevor
Wisdom is referred to with the female gender to emphasise the beauty of wisdom and the fact that wisdom is capable of birthing more wisdom. The male gender is not reproductive.
Obviously at least some of us can say it's impossible with man, since I've been saying it. If I couldn't really say that it is impossible with man, then you couldn't really be annoyed with me for saying, over, and over, and over, that it is impossible with man.
I'm not annoyed. I'm just pointing out that you can't say that generally about.......men.
of course, knowledge has very much something to do with it.
If a man has no knowledge about a triangle - how does he know enough to say what it is?
That would be like me talking to clueless Joe about an "oglebokomoy."
BUT God would know I'm just full of beans.
UNLESS.....a triangle is called by another name.
Maybe, in mouse language, that shape is called, "squeaaaky-queeek?"
Or, a tribe deep in the Amazon call it a "eeskwer."
BUT GOD would know what they mean.
No. I'm saying.....
It is impossible for that shape which we named, "triangle,"
to have more or less than three sides.
That's how God created that particular shape.
Doesn't matter what men call it.
I don't remember my comment exactly - and I don't want to keep going back and checking what I said! I suppose "such a thing" would be what we're talking about!
Look.....it seems we're starting to nitpick on very petty details.
My point is clear.
We cannot compare our minds with God.
We cannot say what God can, or cannot know.
To even suggest that there's something God cannot know - boy,
that's an eye-roller, right there.
That's where I'm coming from with all these. As illustrated above!
That, alone.
I've said all there is for me to say, thank you.
Last edited:
Greetings Truster,
Another aspect of John 1:14 is the word "dwelt" and I have heard the explanation that this can be translated as "tabernacled". If so, then all that was represented by the Tabernacle in the Wilderness finds it's fulfilment in Jesus, and God the Father's glory is revealed in and through Jesus. Thus all the qualities of the instruction and pattern and the words and the lessons concerning the Tabernacle are revealed in Jesus. The Word is like the architectural plans for the Living Word, the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus is the reality of all of God's plans, promises and purpose. My profession has been as a draftsman, and I saw most of the drawings for a Power Station before it was built, and now it is a reality, in a sense The Word made flesh, or in this instance the Word made steel, cement, boilers and turbines.
Kind regards
Trevor
I appreciate the added perspective, and this could be true, but I suggest that this is not the complete picture in Proverbs 8. Also I was referring to Proverbs 8 to explain the concept of personification, and I believe that "The Word" in John 1:1 is a similar personification.
Another aspect of John 1:14 is the word "dwelt" and I have heard the explanation that this can be translated as "tabernacled". If so, then all that was represented by the Tabernacle in the Wilderness finds it's fulfilment in Jesus, and God the Father's glory is revealed in and through Jesus. Thus all the qualities of the instruction and pattern and the words and the lessons concerning the Tabernacle are revealed in Jesus. The Word is like the architectural plans for the Living Word, the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus is the reality of all of God's plans, promises and purpose. My profession has been as a draftsman, and I saw most of the drawings for a Power Station before it was built, and now it is a reality, in a sense The Word made flesh, or in this instance the Word made steel, cement, boilers and turbines.
Kind regards
Trevor
I do believe you are serious. So sad.
Greetings again Truster,
Kind regards
Trevor
Yes, I am serious. Speaking of statements I was interested in reading what you state when you post:
I am not certain what you are saying in both of these. Could you give a brief explanation? I suggest that it is important to understand the meaning of the word Jesus, and that it comes from “Yah Shua” as you state, possibly meaning Yahweh’s Salvation, that is God the Father’s salvation in and through His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The second phrase may deny that one component of salvation is by the individual responding to the gospel with heart felt and sincere faith. I am serious about these also.
Kind regards
Trevor
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
As usual, you failed to answer the question I asked you. Again, about whom or what are you talking when you say "She is a woman"? Are you talking about some woman, or are you talking about some thing that is not a woman? Which is it? And, if you're talking about some woman, then which woman are you talking about? And, if you're talking about some thing that is not a woman, then which thing that is not a woman are you talking about?
Tell me to which (if any) Bible passage(s) you are referring when you say, "God the Father's spoken word and the wisdom, thoughts, reasoning and purpose behind these spoken words is separate from God the Father".
And, by the way, why is it that you seem to feel compelled to always modify the word 'God' by the phrase 'the Father'? And, why would you say it is that Scripture sometimes, though not always, modifies the word 'God' by the phrase 'the Father'?
To what are you referring by the phrase "the pre-incarnate second person of the Trinity"? What person, place, or thing is your referent when you say that phrase? When I say the phrase, I'm actually referring to the pre-incarnate second person of the Trinity, since I'm a Christian. But, since you're not a Christian, and are, rather, an anti-Christian (and, specifically, an unitarian), I'm curious as to what you're referring when you say the phrase "the pre-incarnate second person of the Trinity". You'll notice that I do not go around saying things like "What do you have to say about the non-triune Jehovah?" Why is that? Because, since Jehovah is triune, a phrase such as "the non-triune Jehovah" is, ipso facto, meaningless. No thing corresponds to the phrase. It is without referent. And so, to say something like "What about the non-triune Jehovah?" is not even to ask a question. See, questions are meaningful. That which is meaningless is not a question. Questions are about things. But a meaningless phrase like "the non-triune Jehovah", being meaningless, is not about some thing. No thing is associated with that phrase, else, it would be meaningful, rather than meaningless. So, again, to what are you referring when you use the phrase "the pre-incarnate second person of the Trinity"?
And just what do you imagine you are referring to by the phrase "the incarnation"? Also, what do you mean when you claim that God the Father was "without His spoken word"?
What (if anything) do you mean by "a separate being"?
What (if anything) are you trying to signify by putting quotes around the word 'Wisdom'? Are you saying "and yet you deny that [the word] "Wisdom" is a separate being"? Or, are you saying "and yet you deny that [the thing named by the word] "Wisdom" is a separate being"? What (if anything) are you trying to signify?
You've recycled that nonsense numerous times, I'm aware. And, thus far, you've consistently stonewalled against trying to explain what (if anything) you imagine you mean by it.
You've already, repeatedly professed that you believe that falsehood. And, again, nowhere in any of those passages is it affirmed, in accordance with your heretical blasphemy of Christ, that Jesus was caused to be the Son of God.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
You're still laboring under precisely the error I've been trying to explain. What you just wrote--"That would be like me talking to clueless Joe about an "oglebokomoy""--is meaningless. I'm not trying to insult you or sound mean by saying that. But, here's the thing: your string of characters--"oglebokomoy"--is meaningless. Since it is meaningless--that is, since you are not referring to something by it--you are not even stating a proposition. Propositions are about things. You are neither stating a truth or a falsehood. Patching in some words and punctuation marks around your meaningless string of characters, in such a way as one would do in forming a sentence, does not change the fact that you are not even stating a proposition.
Tell me which (if any) of the following items you would be willing to affirm is meaningful:
- Grat flort uk voot tt glaking ku coooooos J89 xaxet be "oglebokomoy."
[*]That flort uk voot tt glaking ku coooooos J89 xaxet be "oglebokomoy."
[*]That would uk voot tt glaking ku coooooos J89 xaxet be "oglebokomoy."
[*]That would be voot tt glaking ku coooooos J89 xaxet be "oglebokomoy."
[*]That would be like tt glaking ku coooooos J89 xaxet be "oglebokomoy."
[*]That would be like me glaking ku coooooos J89 xaxet be "oglebokomoy."
[*]That would be like me talking ku coooooos J89 xaxet be "oglebokomoy."
[*]That would be like me talking to coooooos J89 xaxet be "oglebokomoy."
[*]That would be like me talking to clueless J89 xaxet be "oglebokomoy."
[*]That would be like me talking to clueless Joe xaxet be "oglebokomoy."
[*]That would be like me talking to clueless Joe about be "oglebokomoy."
[*]That would be like me talking to clueless Joe about an "oglebokomoy."
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
You've explained nothing. You merely repeatedly, meaninglessly chant the word "personification" in proximity to your repeated citations of John 1 and Proverbs 8.
Greetings again 7djengo7,
Kind regards
Trevor
Yes I believe that Wisdom in Proverbs 8 and The Word in John 1:1 are both personifications. To answer the detail of your other Post would be simply to repeat what we have discussed. You seem to like playing with words.
Kind regards
Trevor
Playing with words doesn't change anything. We only end up prattling away.
Bottomline:
My point is clear.
We cannot compare our minds with God.
We cannot say what God can, or cannot know.
Bye for now.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Playing with words doesn't change anything. We only end up prattling away.
Bottomline:
My point is clear.
We cannot compare our minds with God.
We cannot say what God can, or cannot know.
Bye for now.
Man was created, body and mind, in the image of God, so there is that comparison a man justified by faith is allowed.
However, if you mean we cannot fully comprehend the infinite mind of God in whole, while in our finite condition, then I agree exact comparison cannot be claimed.
Finite beings cannot know all that Infinite God knows, but what finite beings learn about God, from God, in His written Word, can be trusted as one and the same Truth known by God. The indwelling Holy Spirit provides regenerated Christians with the "mind of Christ." I Corinthians 2:16
Knowledge is a divine attribute, so it is impossible for God to be ignorant of anything.
In fact, it is this ability that has determined all laws and order; God alone reveals to mankind what is Truth and what is false, through His Word.
Without having the Truth of Holy Scripture, man would know nothing and be totally ignorant of all things.
Think of how many humans are running around this world in that kind of blind state!
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Playing with words doesn't change anything. We only end up prattling away.
Bottomline:
My point is clear.
We cannot compare our minds with God.
We cannot say what God can, or cannot know.
Bye for now.
If, by your phrase, "my point", you are referring to the proposition that you are asserting--'We cannot compare our minds with God'--then, indeed, I agree with you that your "point is clear": it is clear, and it is false. It is only irrationalists and anti-intellectuals who are willing to assert what you are asserting. We can, indeed, compare our minds with God's mind. Not only this, but, hypocritically, you, yourself do so, while pretending that you cannot do so.
Also, when you say "We cannot say what God can...know", you blatantly manifest your self-inconsistency, since, out of the other side of your mouth, you say that God can know everything. If "we cannot say what God can...know", then we cannot say that God can know everything.
But, since you have an anti-intellectual mindset, you do not care about trying to eradicate such inconsistency from your thinking; you proudly, snidely call rigorous, logically-consistent thinking, "nitpick[ing] on very petty details".