isn't a God man a contradiction in terms?

[muskogee22]

man is finite,ignorant,sinful,corporeal,physical and God is the opposite.how can there be 100% man and 100% God at the same time?I am not asking wether God changed or not in taking on a incarnation in christianity,but I am asking wether after the fact if this was even possible?it seems possible that nestorianism is right in this regard that God cannot become a man.

if you say its a mystery of the faith,doesn't that admit that its against the logic of non contradiction?

 

[Luke]

"But Jesus looked at them and said to them, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." -- Matthew 19:26

 

[Samn!]

Meditating on this paradox and mystery is the chief topic of our entire corpus of hymnography. It's precisely the foundation of our faith.

 

[Ainnir]

Also, keep in mind characteristics like ignorance and sinfulness are not inherent to our nature but a perversion of it.

 

[muskogee22]

Also, keep in mind characteristics like ignorance and sinfulness are not inherent to our nature but a perversion of it.

ignorance means not omniscient.even appolinarianism is false because God cannot be limited to a finite human body in time.the church declares it a mystery for a reason.because it isn't rational.

 

[muskogee22]

"But Jesus looked at them and said to them, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." -- Matthew 19:26

if you take this literally,then you must believe God can destroy himself or sin etc and why don't you take john 17 3 literally?

 

[Luke]

if you take this literally,then you must believe God can destroy himself or sin etc and why don't you take john 17 3 literally?

There is no reason not to take it literally. The idea of God destroying Himself is just sophistry.

 

[muskogee22]

There is no reason not to take it literally. The idea of God destroying Himself is just sophistry.

the idea of a God-man is impossible logically speaking and thus also sophistry.

 

[Katechon]

the idea of a God-man is impossible logically speaking and thus also sophistry.

It only is if your paradigms are wrong and gnostic in nature.

 

[Ainnir]

ignorance means not omniscient.even appolinarianism is false because God cannot be limited to a finite human body in time.the church declares it a mystery for a reason.because it isn't rational.

I see; I was taking ignorance in another way. I still believe sin has darkened our understanding, but not, we were never omniscient.
Who are you trying to convince of these things, anyway?

 

[muskogee22]

It only is if your paradigms are wrong and gnostic in nature.

No,it's pretty simple that a unconditioned reality cannot be present in time or space.

 

[Asteriktos]

“For when the soul is fevered with reasonings, and stormy, then it questions, but when it is in a sound state, it does not question, but receives the faith. But from questionings and strifes of words nothing can be discovered. For when the things which faith only promises are received by an inquisitive spirit, it neither demonstrates them, nor suffers us to understand them. If one should close his eyes, he would not be able to find anything he sought: or if, again with his eyes open, he should bury himself, and exclude the sun, he would be unable to find anything, thus seeking. So without faith nothing can be discerned, but contentions must needs arise. 'Whereof come railings, evil surmisings'; that is, erroneous opinions and doctrines arising from questionings. For when we begin to question, then we surmise concerning God things that we ought not.” (St. John Chrysostom, Homily 17 on First Timothy)

“For as reasonings divide, and shake loose, so faith causes solidity and compactness. For seeing God has bestowed upon us benefits surpassing man's reasoning, suitably enough He has brought in faith. It is not possible to be steadfast, when demanding reasons. For behold all our lofty doctrines, how destitute they are of reasonings, and dependent upon faith alone. God is not anywhere, and is everywhere. What has less reason in it than this? Each by itself is full of difficulty. For, indeed, He is not in place; nor is there any place in which He is. He was not made, He made not Himself, He never began to be. What reasoning will receive this, if there be not faith? Does it not seem to be utterly ridiculous, and more endless than a riddle? Now that He has no beginning, and is uncreate, and uncircumscribed, and infinite, is, as we have said, a manifest difficulty; but let us consider His incorporealness, whether we can search out this by reasoning. God is incorporeal. What is incorporeal? A bare word, and no more, for the apprehension has received nothing, has impressed nothing upon itself; for if it does so impress, it comes to nature, and what constitutes body. So that the mouth speaks indeed, but the understanding knows not what it speaks, save one thing only, that it is not body, this is all it knows.” (St. John Chrysostom, Homily 5 on Colossians)

 

[Katechon]

No,it's pretty simple that a unconditioned reality cannot be present in time or space.

Yes it can. Proof: Jesus. It's all about paradigms.

 

[muskogee22]

Yes it can. Proof: Jesus. It's all about paradigms.

Jesus never really claimed to be God though and the majority of christians were unitarians even in the second century.

 

[Katechon]

Jesus never really claimed to be God though and the majority of christians were unitarians even in the second century.

That is patently untrue. Not even the Jews of that day and age were Unitarians.

 

[muskogee22]

That is patently untrue. Not even the Jews of that day and age were Unitarians.

The church of the first three centuries: or, notices of the lives and opinions of some of the early Fathers, with special reference to the doctrine of ... its late origin and gradual formation: Lamson, Alvan: Amazon.com: Books

The church of the first three centuries: or, notices of the lives and opinions of some of the early Fathers, with special reference to the doctrine of ... its late origin and gradual formation [Lamson, Alvan] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The church of the first three...

www.amazon.com

Quotes over 20 bishops .even early Athanasius was Unitarian.

 

[muskogee22]

That is patently untrue. Not even the Jews of that day and age were Unitarians.

All the early christian writings are also iconoclastic.

 

[SirHandel6]

Even if the majority of Christians in the second century were unitarian, look what died out and what didn't. Unitarianism historically has been a thing that pops up and pops out, whether it be the Arians or modern-day Jehovah's Witnesses. Yet even with these situations, the trinitarian doctrine of our church has remained unchanged, even if you find a bunch of saints who preach "unitarianism" as though we are tritheistic, likely these readings you are seeing are as usually what happens, out of context. Regarding iconoclasm, I've seen the opposite in fact. There may have been icons less common back then, but I dunno about iconoclasm and church fathers, and if you read one quote from a church father that sounds iconoclastic, remember they are not always perfect, and you may be again misinterpreting it. Ultimately what you must do in my opinion is "Ask Your Priest" about these issues and pray more than you read, since it is bad to read and never pray. You can have great knowledge on these topics but be spiritually dead.
Matthew 16:26
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

 

[Asteriktos]

All the early christian writings are also iconoclastic.

From what I remember there are only a handful of references, such as the one in St. Irenaeus about the Carpocratians, that can be read as iconoclastic, but the written records are far from conclusive. However, from what I understand the actual art from the first few centuries seems to point in the other direction, with Christians using various kinds of art (not just symbols like the cross or fish) to decorate churches, tombs, etc.

 

[TheTrisagion]

The church of the first three centuries: or, notices of the lives and opinions of some of the early Fathers, with special reference to the doctrine of ... its late origin and gradual formation: Lamson, Alvan: Amazon.com: Books

The church of the first three centuries: or, notices of the lives and opinions of some of the early Fathers, with special reference to the doctrine of ... its late origin and gradual formation [Lamson, Alvan] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The church of the first three...

www.amazon.com

Quotes over 20 bishops .even early Athanasius was Unitarian.

I'm not sure a book written by a Unitarian is conclusive proof that the early Church was Unitarian any more than a book written by a Mormon is conclusive proof that the early Church was Mormon. It is incredibly easy to cherry pick quotes. In fact, there is a website that I came across when I was first studying church history that had lists of quotes showing how all the early Christians were Presbyterians. It was really quite interesting until I actually read the quotes in context and realized that most of the quotes were in fact arguing the exact opposite of what the site was attempting to argue. If you have some of the quotes from that book, post them and we can discuss them, but I doubt many people on this forum are going to rush out and spend $17 bucks on a book just so they can argue on the internet.

 

[Ainnir]

This thread is why I love this forum.

 

[Tzimis]

Jesus never really claimed to be God though and the majority of christians were unitarians even in the second century.

John 14:9

 

[muskogee22]

From what I remember there are only a handful of references, such as the one in St. Irenaeus about the Carpocratians, that can be read as iconoclastic, but the written records are far from conclusive. However, from what I understand the actual art from the first few centuries seems to point in the other direction, with Christians using various kinds of art (not just symbols like the cross or fish) to decorate churches, tombs, etc.

the bishops were iconoclasts in the sence that you shouldn't use images in worship or make images of God.

 

[LBK]

St John of Damascus expresses very well why icons are not only permitted, but necessary in Orthodox worship.

Of old, God the incorporeal and uncircumscribed was not depicted at all. But now that God has appeared in the flesh and lived among men,
I make an image of the God who can be seen. I do not worship matter, but I worship the Creator of matter, who for my sake became material
and deigned to dwell in matter, who through matter effected my salvation. I will not cease from venerating the matter through which my
salvation has been effected.

To prohibit icons in worship or prayer is to deny that God became incarnate. Iconoclasm is heresy.

 

[Tzimis]

the bishops were iconoclasts in the sence that you shouldn't use images in worship or make images of God.

Icons are instrumental in educating the illiterate population about the bible. They serve as a depicted story through imagery.

 

[muskogee22]

St John of Damascus expresses very well why icons are not only permitted, but necessary in Orthodox worship.

Of old, God the incorporeal and uncircumscribed was not depicted at all. But now that God has appeared in the flesh and lived among men,
I make an image of the God who can be seen. I do not worship matter, but I worship the Creator of matter, who for my sake became material
and deigned to dwell in matter, who through matter effected my salvation. I will not cease from venerating the matter through which my
salvation has been effected.

To prohibit icons in worship or prayer is to deny that God became incarnate. Iconoclasm is heresy.

except that before nicaea,wich allowed icons all christian writings are iconoclastic.the early christians had to explain to the pagan romans that they weren't atheists for not using images in worship as the romans accused them of.

 

[recent convert]

St. Paul was not an iconoclast in Colossians 1:15.


Colossians 1:15
King James Version
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

 

[muskogee22]

St. Paul was not an iconoclast in Colossians 1:15.


Colossians 1:15
King James Version
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

weak argument.image is metaphorical here.the early church unanamously rejected icons https://biblequery.org/OtherBeliefs/EasternOrthodox/TheEarlyChurchNeverVeneratedIcons.html

 

[Samn!]

weak argument.image is metaphorical here.the early church unanamously rejected icons https://biblequery.org/OtherBeliefs/EasternOrthodox/TheEarlyChurchNeverVeneratedIcons.html

Lists of out-of-context prooftexts from weird Baptist websites isn't going to convert anyone here to Islam (I see you've converted from Catholicism in the past couple days).

 

[TheTrisagion]

All the early christian writings are also iconoclastic.

St Athanasius, from the Hundred Chapters addressed to Antiochus, the Prefect, according to Question and Answer.—Chap. xxxviii.
We, who are of the faithful, do not worship images as gods, as the heathens did, God forbid, but we mark our loving desire alone to see the face of the person represented in image. Hence, when it is obliterated, we are wont to throw the image as so much wood into the fire. Jacob, when he was about to die, worshipped on the point of Joseph’s staff, not honouring the staff but its owner. Just in the same way do we greet images as we should embrace our children and parents to signify our affection. Thus the Jew, too, worshipped the tablets of the law, and the two golden cherubim in carved work, not because he honoured gold or stone for itself, but the Lord who had ordered them to be made.

 

[recent convert]

weak argument.image is metaphorical here.the early church unanamously rejected icons https://biblequery.org/OtherBeliefs/EasternOrthodox/TheEarlyChurchNeverVeneratedIcons.html

I disagree. In John 1:18 (NKJV)it says “no one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him”. In John 14:9, the Lord tells Philip, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father”. Mary Magdalene & another Mary, worshiped the risen Lord ( Matthew 28:9). If no one has seen God at anytime but the Lord declared Him then tells Philip that seeing Him is as having seen the Father while Mary Magdalene & another Mary worshiped the risen Lord, how could all this be “metaphorical”to the background of what St. Paul says in Colossians 1:15?

 

[muskogee22]

I disagree. In John 1:18 (NKJV)it says “no one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him”. In John 14:9, the Lord tells Philip, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father”. Mary Magdalene & another Mary, worshiped the risen Lord ( Matthew 28:9). If no one has seen God at anytime but the Lord declared Him then tells Philip that seeing Him is as having seen the Father while Mary Magdalene & another Mary worshiped the risen Lord, how could all this be “metaphorical”to the background of what St. Paul says in Colossians 1:15?

you should read it in the greek

Seen Me: Seen Father-John 14:7-9

"Seen Me: Seen Father" - Jn 14:7-9 John 14:1 - "believe in God, believe also in me." 14:7 - "If ye had known me, ye would have known my F...

examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com

and I don't consider the modern day orthodox greek new testament reliable,so for me this isn't proof.

 

[Ainnir]

The universe lives inside your head.

 

[recent convert]

you should read it in the greek

Seen Me: Seen Father-John 14:7-9

"Seen Me: Seen Father" - Jn 14:7-9 John 14:1 - "believe in God, believe also in me." 14:7 - "If ye had known me, ye would have known my F...

examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com

and I don't consider the modern day orthodox greek new testament reliable,so for me this isn't proof.

I was using the New King James Version from a Gideon’s pocket Bible.

 

[Arachne]

and I don't consider the modern day orthodox greek new testament reliable,so for me this isn't proof.

Do you speak Greek?

 

[muskogee22]

Do you speak Greek?

no I don't,but I know the new testament is heavily tampered with

 

[Samn!]

no I don't,but I know the new testament is heavily tampered with

So you literally have no idea what you're talking about, and just jump from religion to religion on the basis of whatever random websites you come across?

 

[Arachne]

no I don't,but I know the new testament is heavily tampered with

The translations unbelievers (and some believers) depend on certainly are, intentionally so.

 

[muskogee22]

The translations unbelievers (and some believers) depend on certainly are, intentionally so.

no,the greek text is.

 

[Arachne]

no,the greek text is.

You can't even read the Greek text, let alone understand it, its context and layering. The early Fathers spent centuries explaining and commentating. Go back to your Arabic classes and leave the NT alone.