stop... to ..think..

[saranoor]

According to most Christians, Jesus was God-incarnate, full man and full God. Can the finite and the infinite be one? "To be full" God means freedom from finite forms and from helplessness, and to be "full man" means the absence of divinity.

1.To be son is to be less than divine and to be divine is to be no one’s son. How could Jesus have the attributes of sonship and divinity altogether?

2.Christians assert that Jesus claimed to be God when they quote him in John 14:9: "He that has seen me has seen the Father". Didn’t Jesus clearly say that people have never seen God, as it says in John 5:37: "And the father himself which Has sent me, has borne witness of me. You have NEITHER HEARD HIS VOICE AT ANY TIME NOR SEEN HIS SHAPE"?

 

[Dream]

Saranoor, please I'm willing talk using normal fonts but not with giant ones or in all caps, pretty please. 'Whatever most Christians say' is fluid and changing all the time. It changes about every 30-50 years.

One objection to taking Jesus and making him non-trinitarian is that very soon he is gone altogether, that is if you continue forward with the logical results of taking the NT as your fundamental source of information. You are making the mistake of assuming it to be a logical historical document, and the NT just isn't logical in the modern sense. As an example when Jesus flies up into the air, why is he leaving us exactly? It isn't logical for him to leave us when he's the person we need the most here. The text says: he leave us to prepare a place for us and sends us the promised holy spirit, but -- the holy spirit was already here before he arrived and we already have a place here! NT phrases can make sense, but what I'm saying is that the NT isn't written to make sense in the modern way. You cannot use it to logically prove anything and certainly neither the divinity nor non-divinity of Jesus. You simply either believe in Jesus or you don't. If you know him, then you can ask him whether he's divine or not but you'll never prove it with the NT.

 

[luecy7]

Infinite anything is an imaginary extreme. Nothing is infinite. Never is infinite. For example it will take an infinite period of time before you will ever see anything infinite. I'd say calling God 'infinite' (or any thing), including the infinite like 'nothing' and 'never', is a bit dishonest, insulting, and a glorified fabrication that ultimately indicates an 'infinite' separation. Not necessarily the case.

#1: Why does divinity mean there are no more relationships?
#2: Context: The words were spoken to individuals in the presence at the time. Do they, or do they not, apply to you?

 

[Ahanu]

As an example when Jesus flies up into the air, why is he leaving us exactly?

Jesus took flight?

 

[Dream]

He rose into the sky, and he has left the face of the earth. He did it without a flaming chariot like Elijah had or any other equipment. An angel then told the apostles that Jesus would return someday.

References are Luke 24:51, Mark 16:19

 

[Ahanu]

He rose into the sky, and he has left the face of the earth. He did it without a flaming chariot like Elijah had or any other equipment. An angel then told the apostles that Jesus would return someday.

References are Luke 24:51, Mark 16:19

Paul says Jesus' body did not rise into the sky: A seed leaves behind its shell for the emerging plant.

Here are my references:

"When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else"
(1 Corinthians 15: 37)

"The last Adam became a life-giving spirit"
(1 Corinthians 15: 45)

"Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God"
(1 Corinthians 15: 50)

 

[Dream]

Paul says Jesus' body did not rise into the sky: A seed leaves behind its shell for the emerging plant.

Here are my references:

"When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else"
(1 Corinthians 15: 37)

"The last Adam became a life-giving spirit"
(1 Corinthians 15: 45)

"Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God"
(1 Corinthians 15: 50)

Let me think about what you're saying. I see what you mean. Paul doesn't mention the part about Jesus flying away, but he does talk about resurrection. The ascension of Jesus as recorded in Mark and Luke takes place after Jesus is physically resurrected. (Mark 16 and Luke 24)

Paul's suggestion is that the old body to the new is like comparing a seed to a fully grown tree. The body dies and is buried but is then reanimated as a better version of its former self. Paul doesn't mention an ascension directly but he does say something vaguely similar in Ephesians 4:10 and also Hebrews 4:14 and 7:26. He talks about Jesus having gone through the heavens.

 

[Ahanu]

Paul's suggestion is that the old body to the new is like comparing a seed to a fully grown tree. The body dies and is buried but is then reanimated as a better version of its former self. Paul doesn't mention an ascension directly but he does say something vaguely similar in Ephesians 4:10 and also Hebrews 4:14 and 7:26. He talks about Jesus having gone through the heavens.

Colossians, a work attributed to Paul, speaks of the believer as exalted with Christ into the heavens:

"So if you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God"
(Col. 3.1)

Colossians identifies resurrection in baptism:

"having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead"
(Col. 2.12)

Also, Ephesians 2.6 does too:

"And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus"

This identification of resurrection in baptism goes against Rom. 6.3-9, however:

"Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin--because anyone who has died has been freed from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him"

If the view of Paul put forth by the writer of Colossians is correct, then ascension does not mean Jesus "rose into the sky" in Paul's mind. Instead, in baptism you have ascended to the heavenly realm with Christ.

 

[Thomas]

According to most Christians, Jesus was God-incarnate, full man and full God. Can the finite and the infinite be one?

Yes, on the basis that the finite must be a dimension of the infinite, else the infinite is not infinite.

"To be full" God means freedom from finite forms and from helplessness, and to be "full man" means the absence of divinity.

Depends what you mean by 'most Christians'. The source of the tradition goes back to the original Church, and was later codified at Chalcedon. The doctrine states implicitly one man in two natures, which answers your question. To put it succinctly, the Divine unites manifests Itself in and through a human nature — The Word became flesh, as we say.

God did not cease to be God in the Incarnation.

To be son is to be less than divine and to be divine is to be no one’s son.

The terms 'father' and 'son' are analogous terms and should not be assumed to mean the same thing as they do in common parlance.

Christians assert that Jesus claimed to be God when they quote him in John 14:9: "He that has seen me has seen the Father". Didn’t Jesus clearly say that people have never seen God, as it says in John 5:37: "And the father himself which Has sent me, has borne witness of me. You have NEITHER HEARD HIS VOICE AT ANY TIME NOR SEEN HIS SHAPE"?

Matthew 11:27:
"And no one knoweth the Son, but the Father: neither doth any one know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal him."
So the Father is revealed in the Son, who is the Logos of God, and who reveals the Creator indirectly in and through creation (the Book of Nature) and directly in and through Himself (the Book of Scripture).

I hope that helps clear up your misunderstandings,

God bless,

Thomas

 

[luecy7]

Does the word 'infinite' even exist in the bible? Who has called God, infinite? Atheists? Buddhists? The infinite includes everything that is finite, so that has to be like the ultimate... the infinite... in idol worshipping.

I do see a verse where some English saps translated a Hebrew word that seems to mean 'end'... into 'infinite'. However, a better translation quickly eliminates that error. I am a little surprised that the more dishonest and entropic NIV translation does not contain the word 'infinite'.

 

[Thomas]

Does the word 'infinite' even exist in the bible? Who has called God, infinite?

Well I would ask immediately if you mean to imply God is not infinite? That God is finite, contingent? I know many assume that to be the case.

I suggest the imagery of 'darkness was upon the face of the deep' (Genesis 1:2) implies such?

I think the Hymn of Colossians says the same, especially "And he is before all, and by him all things consist" (1:17).

"That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts; that being rooted and founded in charity, You may be able to comprehend, with all the saints, what is the breadth, and length, and height, and depth: To know also the charity of Christ, which surpasseth all knowledge, that you may be filled unto all the fulness of God."
Ephesians 3:17-19

"For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor might, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Romans 8:38-39

I think the above, and I'm sure many other verses, testify to the Infinite nature of God.

The Book of Wisdom says:
"For she (Wisdom) is an infinite treasure to men! which they that use, become the friends of God, being commended for the gift of discipline."
Wisdom 7:14

The infinite includes everything that is finite, so that has to be like the ultimate... the infinite... in idol worshipping.

And I am aware of many who, without realising it, have made idols of God ... Scripture literalists, for a start ...

God bless,

Thomas

 

[luecy7]

Well I would ask immediately if you mean to imply God is not infinite?

Absolutely. I have said it.

That God is finite, contingent?

No. I suggest a different word, like unfinite. Infinite is an unrealizable mathematical extreme of the finite. 2 includes 1, 3 includes 2, infinite includes 1, 2, 3... all, and then some. Infinite is highly contingent in that it requires any and all identifiable or counted to be part of the infinite. There is nothing a person can point to and say that infinite is outside of, and excluding that. For example, every idol would be a part of God. To some, that is an attractive idea, preferring themselves to be responsible for nothing. Infinite is such an extreme though, that really it is 'nothing' that is infinite.

The Book of Wisdom says:
"For she (Wisdom) is an infinite treasure to men! which they that use, become the friends of God, being commended for the gift of discipline."
Wisdom 7:14

It looks like an absence of wisdom speaking, but I suspect it was the translator.

 

[seattlegal]

Absolutely. I have said it. No. I suggest a different word, like unfinite. Infinite is an unrealizable mathematical extreme of the finite. 2 includes 1, 3 includes 2, infinite includes 1, 2, 3... all, and then some. Infinite is highly contingent in that it requires any and all identifiable or counted to be part of the infinite. There is nothing a person can point to and say that infinite is outside of, and excluding that. For example, every idol would be a part of God. To some, that is an attractive idea, preferring themselves to be responsible for nothing. Infinite is such an extreme though, that really it is 'nothing' that is infinite.

I'm thinking you are substituting "all inclusive" for infinite. It also seems that you are only looking at "absolute infinity." Infinity can very easily be divided up and still not lose its infiniteness, such as odd and even whole numbers. Those are two infinite sets that exclude each other, as well as all non-whole numbers. Something can be infinite, but not all-inclusive.

 

[luecy7]

I'm thinking you are substituting "all inclusive" for infinite. It also seems that you are only looking at "absolute infinity." Infinity can very easily be divided up and still not lose its infiniteness, such as odd and even whole numbers. Those are two infinite sets that exclude each other, as well as all non-whole numbers. Something can be infinite, but not all-inclusive.

In terms of division, I am similarly doing the same thing by placing a label next to it. Like, an infinite amount of 'nothing'. So then space, matter, time, were allegedly excluded from that 'nothing'. In fact it is the 'zero', or 'nothing', that I was singling out as there being a realizable set of.

I was looking at 'infinite' as a quality in comparison to 'finite'. In math every single finite number is allegedly part of an infinite set. A number itself is not infinite, but it is part of an infinite set. I can not point to any number and say, that number there is finite and it is excluded from being a part of everything infinite. If you try to exclude zero 'nothing', then I just start applying it: there IS an infinite set of zero 'nothing'.

If there were a quality of being 'infinite', because this quality gets associated with 'God', then everything finite here that is not God, is likewise a part of an infinite set. If the quality of 'infinite' exists, then there are an 'infinite' number of idols, there are an 'infinite' number of planets, there are an 'infinite' number of people, there is an 'infinite' number of behavioral attributes. By the math, everything finite is a part of an infinite set. So if the quality of 'infinite' were to exist, it is impossible to say that there is something 'finite', like an idol, that is not a part of an 'infinite'. So then, why associate this quality with God?

 

[seattlegal]

In terms of division, I am similarly doing the same thing by placing a label next to it. Like, an infinite amount of 'nothing'. So then space, matter, time, were allegedly excluded from that 'nothing'. In fact it is the 'zero', or 'nothing', that I was singling out as there being a realizable set of.

I was looking at 'infinite' as a quality in comparison to 'finite'. In math every single finite number is allegedly part of an infinite set. A number itself is not infinite, but it is part of an infinite set. I can not point to any number and say, that number there is finite and it is excluded from being a part of everything infinite. If you try to exclude zero 'nothing', then I just start applying it: there IS an infinite set of zero 'nothing'.

If there were a quality of being 'infinite', because this quality gets associated with 'God', then everything finite here that is not God, is likewise a part of an infinite set. If the quality of 'infinite' exists, then there are an 'infinite' number of idols, there are an 'infinite' number of planets, there are an 'infinite' number of people, there is an 'infinite' number of behavioral attributes. By the math, everything finite is a part of an infinite set. So if the quality of 'infinite' were to exist, it is impossible to say that there is something 'finite', like an idol, that is not a part of an 'infinite'. So then, why associate this quality with God?

You can resolve this dilema in the same manner you resolve the infiniteness of real numbers and the infiniteness of imaginary numbers--don't we use the imaginary unit i to mathemagically go into theoretical extra dimensions?

 

[luecy7]

You can resolve this dilema in the same manner you resolve the infiniteness of real numbers and the infiniteness of imaginary numbers--don't we use the imaginary unit i to mathemagically go into theoretical extra dimensions?

Why do you call it a dilema that anyone could, or should, resolve? I was just planting a real sign that says, "This is an infinite pit... look for God elsewhere."

So then you recommend treading off into the extra dimensions of the imagination? Fine. Here is another sign that I am preparing... nope, I am not going to tell you what it says.

 

[radarmark]

Infinity has many definitions outside mathematics. When the Church Fathers used the term set theory was not even dreamt of, when Aquinas penned Summa the actual existence of infinities was unknown. The problem with the Thomist argument is that it is mathematically naive (by today's standards) and was postulated in response to logical and mathematical contradictions within theology (as I understand it). Cantor's transfinite numbering and Indian logic (Surya Prajnapti) both prove the existence of infinities (it is complex but papers on it exist, just wiki Cantor or transfinite numbers). Gödel and von Neumann and the other set theoreticians extend the use the concept quite easily.

In today's world Swedenborg, Schleiermacher, English Apologetics, Rosenzweig, Barth seem more apropos. Even the Catholics (see Michael Heller) have moved away from some of the logical and mathematical problems incumbent in Thomism.

All of that complicated stuff aside, "infinite love" and "the infinity of G!d" have spiritual meaning and real English meaning without referring to the mathematical complexities.

 

[seattlegal]

Infinity has many definitions outside mathematics. When the Church Fathers used the term set theory was not even dreamt of, when Aquinas penned Summa the actual existence of infinities was unknown. The problem with the Thomist argument is that it is mathematically naive (by today's standards) and was postulated in response to logical and mathematical contradictions within theology (as I understand it). Cantor's transfinite numbering and Indian logic (Surya Prajnapti) both prove the existence of infinities (it is complex but papers on it exist, just wiki Cantor or transfinite numbers). Gödel and von Neumann and the other set theoreticians extend the use the concept quite easily.

In today's world Swedenborg, Schleiermacher, English Apologetics, Rosenzweig, Barth seem more apropos. Even the Catholics (see Michael Heller) have moved away from some of the logical and mathematical problems incumbent in Thomism.

All of that complicated stuff aside, "infinite love" and "the infinity of G!d" have spiritual meaning and real English meaning without referring to the mathematical complexities.

Just because something cannot be measured does not mean that it does not exist. It also does not mean that it cannot be described (however inadequate the descriptive terms may be.)

 

[radarmark]

Yes, I quite agree. For you to make that comment in reponse to me, I must not have explained myself well (a frequent problem). I am not argueing that infinity does not exist or that it is not describable. Only that one does not have to try to justify its existence or describe it in terms of mathematical theory. Plain English does just as well, IMHO.

 

[seattlegal]

Yes, I quite agree. For you to make that comment in reponse to me, I must not have explained myself well (a frequent problem). I am not argueing that infinity does not exist or that it is not describable. Only that one does not have to try to justify its existence or describe it in terms of mathematical theory. Plain English does just as well, IMHO.

LOL, I wasn't arguing against you, I was agreeing with you.