Is Jesus God if

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mickey3456987
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
looskanal said:
No, not insane, just human, …doing everything that He ought to do, when He ought to, and how He ought to.
Click to expand...
Christ claimed to be God. If he didn’t know that, it takes a pretty big ego to claim that.
 
looskanal said:
I think that you have placed before me an impossible task, for there are those for whom even if a man be raised from the dead, it will not convince them. But it’s not my job to convince them
Click to expand...
It’s not an impossible task. I’ll believe it if you logically prove it. It shouldn’t be much trouble if you are.
 
If Christ claimed to be God without knowing it, he would be assuming far too much.
 
If we want to talk about this further, we should start a new thread since it isn’t exactly on topic.
 
EZweber said:
The person of God the Son took another nature, that of humanity. So, the Son has two natures, one is finite and human, and the other is infinite and divine.
Click to expand...
Back to the topic 😂
I understand His two natures but how can God…who cannot change…change to become the human Jesus? Either He changed or He didn’t and, as someone stated…He BECAME human. That implies a temporal event, no?
 
The Person of the Son took a human nature. This resulted in no change to the divine nature. It just means that the Person has two natures. Does that clarify?
 
Not really. I can accept that the divine nature remained the same but God had to perform some change to place His human nature upon the earth. I’m really trying to understand how He doesn’t change yet His human form was placed here as a temporal act.

I may never understand it but I do appreciate the effort!
 
At the risk of making a bad example that is actually erroneous, I’ll give it a shot.

My femaleness does not detract from my humanity. I am both human and female. My being female does not make me only half human because I’m not a man: I’m 100% female and 100% human.
 
I think you are misunderstanding my question. I’m asking about an action in time which would be a change. Maybe what I am misunderstanding is the concept that God doesn’t change which I take to mean that He can not be other than what He is and always was. But coming to earth as a human is Him becoming more than He was previously. Yes, I understand His divine part but He wasn’t a human in heaven before He was human on earth, correct?
 
Right, a human body and soul were created at the moment of Jesus’ conception, just as they are at ours.

That human body and soul were inextricably united to, but did not mix with or alter, the divine nature.

God can act in time (or at least, in time as it appears to us — presumably, to Him everything He does is a single creative act that He is always performing) without changing. Even adding a human nature onto Himself — stapling it onto the outside, as it were — did not change Him internally.
 
God’s divinity can’t change. There’s nothing that says that He can’t take on something temporal. Otherwise it’d be hard to explain how we could end up in Heaven, which too is outside of time.
 
@usagi and @Fauken, thank you for the answers.

I’m not convinced but I’ll just add it to my list of why I’m not religious 😂😂😂. I realize it’s a philosophical question as much as anything and I’m sure it makes perfect sense to you. Unfortunately,these answers aren’t very satisfying to me…but 1 point for trying!
Thank you.
 
Alright
A) is known as Pascal’s Wager. It’s basically a bet on if Heaven and Hell exist.
If I act as if they exist and they do, then I gain everything.
If I act as if they do not exist and they do, I lose everything.
If I act as if they exist and they don’t, it is debatable whether I lose anything.
If I act as if they don’t exist and they don’t, it is debatable whether I gain anything.
Conclusion: The best choice is to act like they exist.
 
B) is quite simple and it reenforces Pascal’s Wager. Religious people are happier. I could bring up tons of examples of people whose happiness is totally indestructible, but personal examples are usually more convincing, so I have had parts of my life that were more religious than others. Right now, I am on the more religious side and I have never been so happy. As I get more religious, I get more happy, and it would bother me less not to be happy. If I find out at the end of my life that there is no afterlife, I seriously think that my choices to be religious will have made me more happy, not less.
 
The problem with A is …which God. Remember, if you pick the wrong God you’re destined for Hell. How many gods are there? Hundreds, thousands? My odds (the wager) gives me a 1:1000 odds of picking the right one. Pascals Wager only works if you have certain knowledge of the right God. Of course, you think you do but you’d have to convince me of that first. After seven plus years of investigation, I have zero certainty.

And how on earth is someone supposed to force their belief so that they can win a wager? Fake it till you make it? I tried that and discovered I can not MAKE myself believe something that I don’t.

B is interesting. I was religious and loved it. For no apparent reason that I have ever determined, I lost my faith. It was a process over time. I was miserable for over seven years of trying to get my beliefs back. I finally accepted it and I’ve been very happy since. I’m married over 45 years to my best friend. I have grown children and grandchildren. I’m financially secure and retired now. Life is pretty wonderful so another persons happiness with their faith is good for them. My experience was otherwise.
 
Well, (A) means that if you have a chance of finding the right God, it’s probably a good idea. Have you heard of the Fatima and Guadalupe miracles? Fatima was a scientifically inexplicable miracle involving the sun with probably 60 - 80 thousand witnesses and was reported as true in aetheistic and anarchist newspapers. Guadalupe is the odd phenomenon of one of the world’s great masterpieces of art appearing on the tilma of a poor Mexican known as Juan Diego in the 16th century. As far as materials go, the paints are inexplicably bright enough to have been laid last week when they should have been badly faded centuries ago. As for the tilma, the average lifespan of a tilma is 50 - 70 years. We have no other from any time even near that. A manmade painting on a tilma was placed in identical conditions right next to the original, and was badly deteriorated in a matter of months. Add that to the fact that the Gospels are by a gigantic margin the best confirmed historical documents of their time and you have a pretty convincing case to at least look at Catholicism.
 
Do you know the percentage of non Catholics that believe in these miracles? Do any of the non Catholics interpret the miracles the same as Catholics?

Do you believe the miracle claims of Islam or Hindi or Animist religions?
 
I do not know the percentage, but Catholic miracles are still happening under carefully monitored circumstances in the modern world. Give me a Hindu miracle reported as true in Catholic news agencies with as many witnesses as Fatima, and I’ll start looking more seriously at Hinduism. Guadalupe has the evidence available now, with critical studies available. Where is that in Hindu or Muslim miracles? I might put on more details on Guadalupe soon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top