What does the word “contain” mean in this context?
Which creed makes this claim?
It might be more accurate to say that the infinite can express itself through the finite. Finite humanity becomes an interface for the infinite to enter in to the world as a participant and not just as an invisible force behind the scenes.
“Yes, Jehovah, through the human nature of Christ defecates.”
Are you a filthy retard? If u identify a human and say that human is a monkey in a zoo, then u are saying that human is experiencing being an animal
this whole “through” bullshit is not addressing the problem, u are saying god is EXISTING as a defecating one. you would probably take shit with your god.
you would probably even fart with him. My point is u are saying the creator is EXISTING as a created one….this “through” bs has not solved any problem, it has just made it worse
your filthy thought of even imaging god as defecating one goes to show how filthy your mind is
Contain i assume, would mean the apparent limiting of the divine nature expressing its full capabilities while being the hypostatic union. Such as his divine glory or knowledge.
Moreover what does “enter in to the world” mean in this context? After all the two natures don’t mix so it shouldn’t make any difference to the divine role whether pre or post incarnation. to say that it does like the word “participant” to me at least implies “containing” the divine in his own creation. whether it be a human body or space time.
Annoyed Pinoy” regularly posts at Triablogue. See here. He defends the Trinity doctrine at one of his own blogs.
I posted the following challenge to him at that blog (see here).
I now crosspost that here in case it happens to disappear:
Trinitarians get around Mark 13:32 by limiting Jesus’ confession of ignorance solely to his “human nature”. But since one’s “nature” is their inherent feature and thus something the person cannot avoid implicating, then if Jesus had two natures, it would be perfectly reasonable to say that BOTH of them were implicated in his confession of ignorance (i.e., the divine side of Jesus admitted being ignorant of something).
The reasonableness of implicating both of his alleged “natures” is not going to disappear merely because you feel forced under biblical inerrancy to automatically favor any view about Jesus that will make sense of the premise that he could both know and not know one single factoid at the same time.
You probably believe that a person’s mind is their “spirit”, and if so, this would be the case with Jesus who became a “real” human being (i.e., became a higher-order mammal whose mind was capable of operating separately from its body). Ok, was Jesus speaking with his “mind” when he confessed this ignorance? Is Jesus’ “mind” the same as his “spirit”? Was Jesus’ speaking from his “spirit” by divulging the ignorant state of his “mind” in Mark 13:32? What exactly would be “unreasonable” in saying Jesus’ was speaking from his “spirit” in Mark 13:32?
Was Jesus’ spirit separate from the Holy Spirit? Mark 3 would seem to disallow this with its warning that accusing Jesus of demon-possession constitutes blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, as it falsely equates the Holy Spirit with demons…which implies that Jesus’ “spirit” is the Holy Spirit, there is no lesser “human spirit” in addition to his “Holy Spirit”. Jesus also breathes on the disciples in John 20 and says “receive ye the Holy Spirit” powerfully supporting the notion that his spirit is the Holy Spirit, and there is no fourth identity called “human spirit” in existence here.
Therefore, if Jesus was speaking his “mind” in Mark 13:32, he was also speaking from his “spirit” in Mark 13:32, and thus his confession of ignorance constitutes the Holy Spirit’s ignorance, which then saddles god himself with this ignorance.
Was the day of Christ’s return missing from Jesus’ “mind”? Was it missing from his “spirit”?
If you try to get away from this by positing that Jesus had a “human mind” that was separate from “Holy Spirit”, you’ll end up with 4 people in the Trinity…at least during his earthly life, even if there were only 3 people in it before the incarnation.
Remember, there are only 3 persons you are allowed here, no extras!
Seems to me that reading Trinitarian theology back into Mark 13:32 comes at great intellectual sacrifice, and doesn’t even conform to normative hermeneutical convention, since what the originally intended audience likely understood Mark 13:32 represents a normative rule of interpretation, and common sense would insist that Mark’s orignally intended audience, back there in 60 a.d., likely had views of Jesus far less theologically sophisticated than the views espoused by the “orthodox” at Nicaea.
So Mark’s originally intended audience would more than likely have denied Jesus’ alleged omniscience, and if other parts of Mark indicate Jesus knew all things, this is either typical Semitic exaggeration, or Jesus inconsistently held an unrealistically high view of himself, or Mark’s gospel is merely inconsistent about the matter.
I personally prefer the second. Mark’s obvious apathy toward Jesus’ childhood is more consistent with the theory that he was something of an adoptionist, even if, like most people, his entire story is not consistent with everything adoptionist.
Regardless, bible inerrancy is a false doctrine, so I’m quite reasonable to feel comfortable with the possibility that the interpretation of Mark 13:32 that causes Mark to contradict himself, is the correct one.
This is despite the fact that Mark nowhere claims that Jesus is equal with God.
I don’t have a problem with what you call “ignorance”. Otherwise we have just have modalism with the same divine mind saying one thing here and one thing there. A bit like a ventriloquist. It’s a sign of a real distinction between the persons of the Godhead.
“The Father knows and the Son doesn’t. I don’t see this as a limitation that makes the Son any less God than the Father.”
…What?! of course it does! To know everything is a attribute of divinity. If the son knows less than the father that makes him less god or not God in that moment. you can’t know everything and not know something at the same time.
“Unless you can tell me what your criteria are”
The definition of omniscient.
“Then you are going to say the one is omniscient and the other isn’t.”
Well yes of course. Anyone who uses their mind would with this paradigm. including you in your first sentence.
“But that would be your stipulation against what the NT reveals. I side with what the NT reveals God to be and not what I think he should be.”
no problem with ” the initial post about containing God.” ?
I don’t know why this is relevant to what I said and I stick by my belief that the bible does not teach that the finite contains the infinite. To the contrary.
Go back to my first comment and compare it with where you said ““The Father knows and the Son doesn’t.” whether you like it or not God is limited by your theology. Containing is another form of limiting, you shouldn’t have a problem with it either. let me ask, whats the difference in your mind between God being contained and the son not knowing the hour? Because to me their basically the same issue.
Contain i assume, would mean the apparent limiting of the divine nature expressing its full capabilities while being the hypostatic union. Such as his divine glory or knowledge.
“Why should the Son know this one thing if the Father does not choose to reveal it to him?”
Because if the son claims to be God and demands worship then he should have the attributes of God.
“Why should that negate the divinity of the Son?”
…Because he’d not be all knowing. and being not all knowing makes you not God.
“You seem to know more about the nature of God than he has been pleased to reveal.”
What are you talking about? This is the very basic idea of God. that he be all knowing. Not to mention very consistent with whats left of the the past scriptures like Ezekiel 28
christians are going to burn in hell man, they have no fear of insulting HIM . You guys are going to burn in hell and even jews admit you will not be happy in the life to come.
“your filthy thought of even imaging god as defecating one goes to show how filthy your mind is”
Didn’t God design us that way? So why should he or anyone else be ashamed of that fact?
The incarnation is also a way of God taking delight in his own creation. It is the ultimate seal of approval for what he has made.
On the other hand according to you Allah made a bad product and he should be ashamed of himself. It is no wonder he seems to be in a permanent state of resentment. If you read the Koran that is the impression you get.
Can God be stupid? Didn’t he design us that way? There are things God does not because it is not befitting of Him. Since God is All Knowing He does not need to become creation. He is the only thing that is alone and uncreated, the incarnation then creates another thing that is like God which also makes Him drop His uniqueness.
“Didn’t God design us that way? So why should he or anyone else be ashamed of that fact?”
so going by your logic the designer of sexual urge must also in a possible world allow sexual urge to overtake him so he can come down and have sex with christian women filling them better than holy ghost? or maybe all 3 could do a gang bang?
think about it, as long as it is holy , then yhwh should not have a problem going through these urges
What does the word “contain” mean in this context?
Which creed makes this claim?
It might be more accurate to say that the infinite can express itself through the finite. Finite humanity becomes an interface for the infinite to enter in to the world as a participant and not just as an invisible force behind the scenes.
“It might be more accurate to say that the infinite can express itself through the finite.”
what does “express” mean ?
so yhwh goes to the bathroom and takes a poop, did yhwh create his expression of himself taking a poop?
a pooping yhwh is a created yhwh, thats how you are relating to it.
Yes, Jehovah, through the human nature of Christ defecates.
You seem to have a morbid fascination with this subject.
No doubt you are following your mentor in this respect.
“Yes, Jehovah, through the human nature of Christ defecates.”
Are you a filthy retard? If u identify a human and say that human is a monkey in a zoo, then u are saying that human is experiencing being an animal
this whole “through” bullshit is not addressing the problem, u are saying god is EXISTING as a defecating one. you would probably take shit with your god.
you would probably even fart with him. My point is u are saying the creator is EXISTING as a created one….this “through” bs has not solved any problem, it has just made it worse
your filthy thought of even imaging god as defecating one goes to show how filthy your mind is
what then is wrong with yhwh having holy sex ?
Contain i assume, would mean the apparent limiting of the divine nature expressing its full capabilities while being the hypostatic union. Such as his divine glory or knowledge.
Moreover what does “enter in to the world” mean in this context? After all the two natures don’t mix so it shouldn’t make any difference to the divine role whether pre or post incarnation. to say that it does like the word “participant” to me at least implies “containing” the divine in his own creation. whether it be a human body or space time.
ErASSmu and slutemple,
https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2019/10/my-trinity-rebuttal-to-annoyedpinoy.html?m=1
Quote:
Annoyed Pinoy” regularly posts at Triablogue. See here. He defends the Trinity doctrine at one of his own blogs.
I posted the following challenge to him at that blog (see here).
I now crosspost that here in case it happens to disappear:
Trinitarians get around Mark 13:32 by limiting Jesus’ confession of ignorance solely to his “human nature”. But since one’s “nature” is their inherent feature and thus something the person cannot avoid implicating, then if Jesus had two natures, it would be perfectly reasonable to say that BOTH of them were implicated in his confession of ignorance (i.e., the divine side of Jesus admitted being ignorant of something).
The reasonableness of implicating both of his alleged “natures” is not going to disappear merely because you feel forced under biblical inerrancy to automatically favor any view about Jesus that will make sense of the premise that he could both know and not know one single factoid at the same time.
You probably believe that a person’s mind is their “spirit”, and if so, this would be the case with Jesus who became a “real” human being (i.e., became a higher-order mammal whose mind was capable of operating separately from its body). Ok, was Jesus speaking with his “mind” when he confessed this ignorance? Is Jesus’ “mind” the same as his “spirit”? Was Jesus’ speaking from his “spirit” by divulging the ignorant state of his “mind” in Mark 13:32? What exactly would be “unreasonable” in saying Jesus’ was speaking from his “spirit” in Mark 13:32?
Was Jesus’ spirit separate from the Holy Spirit? Mark 3 would seem to disallow this with its warning that accusing Jesus of demon-possession constitutes blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, as it falsely equates the Holy Spirit with demons…which implies that Jesus’ “spirit” is the Holy Spirit, there is no lesser “human spirit” in addition to his “Holy Spirit”. Jesus also breathes on the disciples in John 20 and says “receive ye the Holy Spirit” powerfully supporting the notion that his spirit is the Holy Spirit, and there is no fourth identity called “human spirit” in existence here.
Therefore, if Jesus was speaking his “mind” in Mark 13:32, he was also speaking from his “spirit” in Mark 13:32, and thus his confession of ignorance constitutes the Holy Spirit’s ignorance, which then saddles god himself with this ignorance.
Was the day of Christ’s return missing from Jesus’ “mind”? Was it missing from his “spirit”?
If you try to get away from this by positing that Jesus had a “human mind” that was separate from “Holy Spirit”, you’ll end up with 4 people in the Trinity…at least during his earthly life, even if there were only 3 people in it before the incarnation.
Remember, there are only 3 persons you are allowed here, no extras!
Seems to me that reading Trinitarian theology back into Mark 13:32 comes at great intellectual sacrifice, and doesn’t even conform to normative hermeneutical convention, since what the originally intended audience likely understood Mark 13:32 represents a normative rule of interpretation, and common sense would insist that Mark’s orignally intended audience, back there in 60 a.d., likely had views of Jesus far less theologically sophisticated than the views espoused by the “orthodox” at Nicaea.
So Mark’s originally intended audience would more than likely have denied Jesus’ alleged omniscience, and if other parts of Mark indicate Jesus knew all things, this is either typical Semitic exaggeration, or Jesus inconsistently held an unrealistically high view of himself, or Mark’s gospel is merely inconsistent about the matter.
I personally prefer the second. Mark’s obvious apathy toward Jesus’ childhood is more consistent with the theory that he was something of an adoptionist, even if, like most people, his entire story is not consistent with everything adoptionist.
Regardless, bible inerrancy is a false doctrine, so I’m quite reasonable to feel comfortable with the possibility that the interpretation of Mark 13:32 that causes Mark to contradict himself, is the correct one.
This is despite the fact that Mark nowhere claims that Jesus is equal with God.
erassmus, u can always help barry jones see how wrong he is. ken, u can help assmis.
I don’t have a problem with what you call “ignorance”. Otherwise we have just have modalism with the same divine mind saying one thing here and one thing there. A bit like a ventriloquist. It’s a sign of a real distinction between the persons of the Godhead.
@Watson
“I don’t have a problem with what you call “ignorance”.
Then you don’t have a problem with limiting God or the initial post about containing God.
The Father knows and the Son doesn’t. I don’t see this as a limitation that makes the Son any less God than the Father.
Unless you can tell me what your criteria are.
Then you are going to say the one is omniscient and the other isn’t.
But that would be your stipulation against what the NT reveals. I side with what the NT reveals God to be and not what I think he should be.
@Watson
“The Father knows and the Son doesn’t. I don’t see this as a limitation that makes the Son any less God than the Father.”
…What?! of course it does! To know everything is a attribute of divinity. If the son knows less than the father that makes him less god or not God in that moment. you can’t know everything and not know something at the same time.
“Unless you can tell me what your criteria are”
The definition of omniscient.
“Then you are going to say the one is omniscient and the other isn’t.”
Well yes of course. Anyone who uses their mind would with this paradigm. including you in your first sentence.
“But that would be your stipulation against what the NT reveals. I side with what the NT reveals God to be and not what I think he should be.”
This just sounds like blind faith to me.
“The Father knows and the Son doesn’t. I don’t see this as a limitation that makes the Son any less God than the Father.”
thats like saying son helps daddy bring d.o.j into existing and then asks daddy
“Yo daddy , what day is this” ?
no problem with ” the initial post about containing God.” ?
I don’t know why this is relevant to what I said and I stick by my belief that the bible does not teach that the finite contains the infinite. To the contrary.
Go back to my first comment and compare it with where you said ““The Father knows and the Son doesn’t.” whether you like it or not God is limited by your theology. Containing is another form of limiting, you shouldn’t have a problem with it either. let me ask, whats the difference in your mind between God being contained and the son not knowing the hour? Because to me their basically the same issue.
I don’t know what you mean by “containing”. If you could flesh this out it would help me. You seem to use the word in a rather vague manner.
Why should the Son know this one thing if the Father does not choose to reveal it to him?
Why should that negate the divinity of the Son?
You seem to know more about the nature of God than he has been pleased to reveal.
@Watson
Contain i assume, would mean the apparent limiting of the divine nature expressing its full capabilities while being the hypostatic union. Such as his divine glory or knowledge.
“Why should the Son know this one thing if the Father does not choose to reveal it to him?”
Because if the son claims to be God and demands worship then he should have the attributes of God.
“Why should that negate the divinity of the Son?”
…Because he’d not be all knowing. and being not all knowing makes you not God.
“You seem to know more about the nature of God than he has been pleased to reveal.”
What are you talking about? This is the very basic idea of God. that he be all knowing. Not to mention very consistent with whats left of the the past scriptures like Ezekiel 28
christians are going to burn in hell man, they have no fear of insulting HIM . You guys are going to burn in hell and even jews admit you will not be happy in the life to come.
I would be insulting God if I did not accept what he has revealed in his words. You are the one who is insulting God.
You play fast and loose with your own scriptures, accepting some commandments and rejecting others so it should come as no surprise.
@ Watson
Hey how many pork chops do you plan on eating this month?
“You play fast and loose with your own scriptures, accepting some commandments and rejecting others so it should come as no surprise.”
u are a hypocrite since u pick and choose secular laws and trash yhwh’ holi ones
jesus played fast and loose with torah, just carefully study his use of ambiguous texts to win against the pharisees
jesus reduced torah laws to digestion and drain
jesus thought that laws of torah could be replaced to blood human sacrifce….torah would puke at this thought.
Stupid misrepresentation.
“Why should the Son know this one thing if the Father does not choose to reveal it to him?
Why should that negate the divinity of the Son?”
The father is the one who chooses to reveal something to his child?
the father chooses what to reveal and what to keep secret?
the father has something the son lacks and that is choice to hide and disclose lol
so the son along with the father brings into existence day x, the father knows what it is , the son doesnt LOL LOL LOL
“your filthy thought of even imaging god as defecating one goes to show how filthy your mind is”
Didn’t God design us that way? So why should he or anyone else be ashamed of that fact?
The incarnation is also a way of God taking delight in his own creation. It is the ultimate seal of approval for what he has made.
On the other hand according to you Allah made a bad product and he should be ashamed of himself. It is no wonder he seems to be in a permanent state of resentment. If you read the Koran that is the impression you get.
“Didn’t God design us that way? So why should he or anyone else be ashamed of that fact?”
he didnt design himself /neither create himself as a man
“The incarnation is also a way of God taking delight in his own creation”
Why? he would be experiencing it as a created one lol
“. It is the ultimate seal of approval for what he has made.”
What do you mean?
“On the other hand according to you Allah made a bad product and he should be ashamed of himself. ”
dear a-hole, examine the attributes
hunger
lack of knowledge
forgetting
Learning
going to toilet
sleeping
Do not befit the one who is GOD over all of this. God knows WHO HE IS AND WHO HE ISNT
@ Watson
Can God be stupid? Didn’t he design us that way? There are things God does not because it is not befitting of Him. Since God is All Knowing He does not need to become creation. He is the only thing that is alone and uncreated, the incarnation then creates another thing that is like God which also makes Him drop His uniqueness.
“Didn’t God design us that way? So why should he or anyone else be ashamed of that fact?”
so going by your logic the designer of sexual urge must also in a possible world allow sexual urge to overtake him so he can come down and have sex with christian women filling them better than holy ghost? or maybe all 3 could do a gang bang?
think about it, as long as it is holy , then yhwh should not have a problem going through these urges
Did the islamic Adam poop in paradise before he was evicted?
I hope he had some air freshner up there.
@ Watson
No he(as) didn’t. Did Jesus(as) not know when the Hour was despite being God when he was on Earth?
“Did the islamic Adam poop in paradise before he was evicted?”
i dont see what has any of this got anything to do with yhwh pooping
yhwh poops because he is a creation, right?
yhwh exists as a created one, right?
The father is the one who chooses to reveal something to his child?
the father chooses what to reveal and what to keep secret?
the father has something the son lacks and that is choice to hide and disclose lol
so the son along with the father brings into existence day x, the father knows what it is , the son doesnt LOL LOL LOL
i would like to see what gods u r worshipping
so far u admit that.the god u worship exists as a man, yet the ghost and father have no experience of being a man
the son exists as a man, yet god the god (son bit) has no experience of “god the man”
as if the son is completely two different beings
so how many kinds are u worshipping?
above u say the father has quality which give him ability to hold and withhold in formation
what yhwh demonstrated to erasmus by urinating and excretion, what “sign” was shown through this activity….that yhwh is a man?
erasmus since we all know yhwh is a maan, i was wondering , why did he make the sun, was he feeling cold ?