Jesus: More Reasons Why He's a Space Alien
Aaron Kinney Permalink
7 comments
Paul Manata has two blogs! Or at least more than one. I didn't know that. How cool. Since I hijacked his thread on Pressing the Antithesis, Paul posted a link on Kill The Afterlife to a post on Triablogue which is a challenge to me to prove that Jesus cannot be 100% man and 100% God simultaneously.
I haven't read much on this specific topic, but I thought it would be fun to test some arguments and see how Paul and the other Christians respond. And I would like to get some atheist feedback as well.
Here is where I posted a few starter arguments in the comments section:
1. Man is finite.
2. God is infinite.
3. A God cannot be finite.
4. Jesus could not have been a man.
Here’s another one:
1. All humans are either Adam or Eve, or descendants of Adam or Eve.
2. Adam, Eve, and all their descendants are cursed with original sin.
3. Jesus did was not cursed with original sin.
4. Jesus could not have been a descendant of Adam or Eve.
What do you think? If anyone has any other arguments they would like to throw out, I suggest you post them.
Post a Comment
7 Comments:
Here are four conceptual problems with an incarnate God, that is, how can one person be truly and fully God, and at the same time truly and fully a man: 1) God is necessarily an uncreated being. Humans are essentially created beings. Therefore Jesus is both created and uncreated; 2) God is necessarily omniscient—he knows everything. Human beings are not omniscient beings. Therefore, Jesus is both an omniscient and also not an omniscient being. But in the New Testament Jesus didn’t act omniscient. He said he didn’t know the time of his own return; 3) God is a morally perfect being, and as such could not be tempted to do wrong. Human beings however, can be tempted to do wrong, and are imperfect. Therefore, Jesus could not be tempted, nor do any wrong, and yet we’re told that he was tempted to do wrong. 4) God is omnipresent, but Jesus as a human being, was not.
I don't think you even need to get that complicated. "God" is an incoherent concept, so it's meaningless to talk about anyone being any percent of it.
You would make as much sense talking about "Zach is 100% human and 100% blark."
"Aaron, why do you think an infinite God cannot make Himself finite within a specified boundry of space and time?"
Christianity = Brain Damage
Zach,
Aaron said the *hypostatic* union was mistaken. So, if he wants to deny his claim and try for the incoherency of God argument (which always fail), then he can do so. But that would be another topic. The point here is that Aaron needs to back up his claim.
Also, if we're going to get more technical, let's use the word fully and not 100%. I admit that it was not helpful for me to do that, but I thought it helpful in the comments section.
Anyway, the thread is over at TRIABLOGUE. So, please go over there and do your damage.
Todd,
Because he wouldnt be God when he changed his properties in that way.
God and man have so many mutually exclusive properties its ridiculous.
Hypostatic, Shmypostatic. Now I suppose you'll be using more incoherent concepts like "nature."
Oh, and "Zach is fully human and fully blark" doesn't really sound any less coherent.
Jesus was neither God nor Man (one capital letter deserves another). Jesus is a device, a mindbreaking device. As you pointed out, if you are Man, you are of mankind and you are not God. If you are God, you are not of mankind and you are not Man. If you can force a person to attempt to accept two mutually exclusive ideas at the same time (what is the sound of one hand clapping?) the part of the brain responsible for rational analysis goes "boooooooooooooooop!" Now our sorry subject is ready to believe anything, starting with the idea that freedom from thinking is "enlightenment". Now the subject will "believe" anything. The universe was made in seven days, the earth is only 6,000 years old, and God can make little pink butterflies fly out of my butt.
If Jesus was God, who was he asking about being forsook when they hanged him? Himself?
If he was all-knowing, then he knew that he could not be killed, so what was the sacrifice again?
If he was dead for three days, does that mean that the athiests were right for three days?
<< Home