God becoming man is a contradictory. A man by definition is not all powerful, not present everywhere, not all-knowing, not creator of the physical and metaphysical world and not existing before eternity. If God becomes man, it will become a being without these attributes (not God).
>>15627783Semantics.
>>15627783He put on human nature and never stopped being God. 1 person 2 natures, Hypostatic Union
>>15627800?>>15627806It's not possible to do it without becoming not God.
>>15627828How? Jesus doesn't lose the attributes you mentioned in the OP under the Hypostatic Union.
>>15627863The Hypostatic Union assumes a man can have the attributes of God, which is false. Men have limitations. They are not all-powerful, because their bodies are limited, not present everywhere, because their bodies are finite in matter, not all-knowing, because their minds do not access all of reality, and, perhaps most obviously, not existing before eternity, because they are born in a certain point of time. Therefore, a Hypostatic Union or an incarnation of God cannot happen.
>>15627880>The Hypostatic Union assumes a man can have the attributes of GodThat's not what it says, the two natures (which includes attributes) of human and God are kept separate in the hypostatic union
>>15627929>That's not what it says, the two natures (which includes attributes) of human and God are kept separate in the hypostatic unionHow? Would Jesus be two beings? That's impossible.
>>15628223Complementing: also, the incarnation says God makes itself man.
Bump
God doesn't cease to exist and possess these attributes upon the incarnation The next time you think you have some clever gotcha for christian theology why don't you just see if someone else has written on it. I guarantee you that if you have a novel criticism it won't sustain, because you really do not know that much about christian theology.
>>15628762Then Christ is not a man. What is a man, afterall?
>>15628762>>15627880
>>15628785Non sequitur
>>15627783God isn't real, so no.
>>15628791Sequitur. See >>15627880
>>15627783If Jesus and the Father had one mind, why did Jesus have to pray to the Father to ask if there was another way besides dying on the cross? Did he forget?
>>15628762>God doesn't cease to exist and possess these attributes upon the incarnationbut Christians tell me all the time when he emptied himself he didn't have all of his godness. Just whenever it's convenient for contradictions.
>>15628845>let me compare your argument to my strawman of someone i talked to that allegedly believes the same as you (he told me something wrong that i can use to attack you btw)
>>15628942https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosis
>>15628950just because His Godly nature isn't expressed doesn't mean it isn't there.it's like saying carriers of recessive genetic diseases don't exist because they don't have the disease.
>>15628958If so, then >>15627880
>>15627783Man's inability to conceive of something is not a limitation on God, he overflows all categories. Now we see things in a mirror dimly.
>>15629172It's illogical nonetheless.
>>15629182Human "logic" has no agreed upon definition, no agreed upon application, and is only ever used (with minimal success) in the brief lives of flawed creatures in a created world. Appeals to "logic" are I Fucking Love Science for wordcels. Laughable to address the ineffable with this Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent.
>>15627880>They are not all-powerful, because their bodies are limited, not present everywhereWrong
>>15629214So do you agree that it's illogical?>>15629229?
>>15629214Also,>Human "logic" has no agreed upon definition, no agreed upon application (...)What do you mean?
>>15629242Define it. Show me where "logic" is unambiguously defined. What "logic" is and what its limits are has been a disputed question since Aristotle. It is fundamentally grounded in the ambiguity of human reason.
>>15629298I'm talking about first order logic. It's not ambiguous.
>>15629321Great. Please use first order logic to prove that a transcendent Creator of infinite qualitative difference from any created thing can't do something. This will be a groundbreaking result.
>>15629346God can't do contradictory things. See >>15627880.
>>15629355And >>15627783
>>15629355This does not look like Frege or Russell, it's just you assuming the answer. Counterpoint: there is no contradiction. Consider: https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4002.htm
>>15629392Sorry, I meant predicate logic. And what of the questions/objetions that you linked has to do with the contradiction I showed?
>>15629411Aquinas explains the incarnation and what is meant by the two natures and hypostasis. These objections aren't anything new, Catholic nerds have been arguing about this for going on 2000 years, their answers are pretty solid (I'm not Catholic, just pointing out they can answer your objections).But basically, even if "contradiction" was something that meant anything in relation to God, things can have two completely different natures. A particle can be a wave, for example, one thing expressing different nature's depending on the circumstance. Not a contradiction, just non obvious.
>>15629422>things can have two completely different natures>A particle can be a waveI don't get it. Photons, electrons etc can behave as wave sometimes and behave as particles other times, but how does that change their nature and create a contradiction? It seems different from the case of the Trinity.
>>15627783If God is all powerful then he can create a rock so heavy even he cannot lift
>>15629422But I'll read this part of Summa Theologica that you linked. Any more recommendations to understand the incarnation?
>>15627783He's not just a man, he's also God.
>>15629422Where exactly in the Summa Theologica is the answer for my objection? I only found other objections.
>>15629985The structure of the summa is objections followed by answers, it's scholastic. Keep reading. You may need to back in the book to get the full argument, Thomism is a complete whole. But I think that chapter is the closest to addressing your specific concerns.But theology is not as fundamental as faith, these arguments, like any arguments, are subject to error and uncertainty.
>>15630805Got it, I'll try to find the answer for my questions some more time. Anyway, wouldn't Scholastic only be accepted by Catholics? For example, you said not to be Catholic.
>>15631638I'm not a Catholic, but I find the arguments interesting. Scholasticism existed in a 100% Catholic context, so there is that, and while it anticipates modern philosophy, it's not modern, it's mostly Aristotle in a late medieval context (as I understand it, not an expert). No one is required to accept any argument in any case, but no one can accuse Aquinas of not being thorough. Most fedora atheist arguments have been laughed into oblivion centuries ago, but neither atheists nor Catholics know this, nor do they know much of anything about their own position.And, from a Christian perspective, it's not that important.
>>15631684>No one is required to accept any argument in any case, but no one can accuse Aquinas of not being thoroughI don't know, I was reading some of the objections he raised and some seemed a bit scarecrow-y, and I found something which I think is a non sequitur:>Objection 3. Further, a body is as distant from the highest spirit as evil is from the highest good. But it was wholly unfitting that God, Who is the highest good, should assume evil. Therefore it was not fitting that the highest uncreated spirit should assume a body.>assume evil? Non sequitur?>Most fedora atheist arguments have been laughed into oblivion centuries agoI get it, but I'm still trying to find some answer to the problem in the incarnation that I pointed>but neither atheists nor Catholics know this, nor do they know much of anything about their own position.>And, from a Christian perspective, it's not that important.How not important? This kind of objections are central to the Christian belief (on the incarnation, Trinity etc).
>>15628835He was of Human nature at that moment (2 natures). That basically meant that, while he was God, he was also the perfect human. A perfect human would pray. So yes you could say he forgot, or rather put certain limitations on himself to have the fullness of the human experience, which includes crying out to God.
