Aaron Kinney will show that it is IMPOSSIBLE that Jesus could be both fully God and fully man. I am dedicating the comments section in this post to the penetrating analysis we will be sure to see coming from Kinney.
So far Kiney has posted an almost unanswerable argument against Jesus' dual natures. To get this show started, I'll post his argument against the impossibility that Jesus is both fully God and fully man. Her writes,
"Let me give an example of why I think being 100% of two things at the same time is not possible: I am 100% Aaron Kinney. You are 100% Paul Manata. Could I be both 100% Aaron and 100% Paul at the same time? No. Or could I maybe be 100% Aaron and 100% Ford Mustang at the same time?"
Can any theologian worth his salt answer such devistating argumentation? Are thousands of years of Christology all but worthless? Mere chattle? Let's formalize his argument and then allow him to work from there:
P1: Aaron cannot be 100% Aaron and 100% Ford Mustang at the same time.
P2: Aaron cannot be 100% Aaron and 100% Paul at the same time
_________________
C1: Therefore, it is impossible that Jesus could be 100% God and 100% man at the same time.
Utterly amazing. Are the readers of T-blog speechless?
Like the freak-shows of old, clicking on the comments section will take you into a world where you will be shocked and amazed. Step right up, come one come all, and prepare to be amazed.
I now turn this over to Aaron Kinney. Ladies and gentlemen, you're in for a real treat.
Aaron, it's all yours:
Oh my god Paul I didnt know you had a second blog!
ReplyDeleteI wasnt trying to formalize an argument, but merely having a casual conversation with you. Sorry for hijacking your thread. But since you want me to give something more formal I will give you Christians something to refute, and we can go from there, eh?
ReplyDelete1. Man is finite.
2. God is infinite.
3. A God cannot be finite.
4. Jesus could not have been a man.
I guess that one could be attacked on premise #1. Do you think a man can be infinite?
Heres 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.
"Are the readers of T-blog speechless?"
ReplyDeleteYou have readers ? My bet is that they are as made up as your saviour.
I read this all the time. It's quality blogging. But it's good to see all the atheists showing up at once to attack Paul. "Rally the troops! Boost morale! CHARGE!"
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, someone forgot to tell them to bring a weapon. Keep it up here: I may not comment, but I certainly enjoy reading.
Wow, so, you're saying humanity can't be Deity, and Deity can't be humanity?
ReplyDeleteSo, to do this... why, He'd have to have two natures, one of them 100% human, one of them 100% divine, with no admixture betwixt them!
Why did no one ever think of this?!
< /s >
Aaron: Oh my buddah Paul I didnt know you had a second blog!
ReplyDeletePaul: I don't, I *write* for one.
Aaron: I wasnt trying to formalize an argument,
Paul: Believe me, I know you weren't!
Aaron:
1. Man is finite.
2. God is infinite.
3. A God cannot be finite.
4. Jesus could not have been a man.
Paul: Jesus was not a hybred of God and man, which your argument assumes. Jesus was both fully God and fully man.
The second person of the Trinity (the son), at a point in time, took on a human nature. Jesus therefore has two natures. One is fully divine and the other is fully human. These two are not mixed.
So, as one commenter suggested, all you're saying is that a man is a man and God is God. Yeah, we already knew that, Aaron.
The hypostatic union assigns the divine attributes to the divine nature and the human ones to the human nature. I think you would grant that you must properly represent our position before you critique, no? So, hit a systematics text before you come back.
So, Jesus was not finite *in the same sense* that he was infinite. Jesus was finite *in respects to his human nature, but not in respects to his divine nature.
So given the above, as you noted "we can go from" here, I'd like to see how it is *impossible* that athe person (Jesus) with two natures(divine-human) cannot exist, that is, it is *impossible.*
Francois: You have readers ? My bet is that they are as made up as your saviour.
Paul: Sure do, we're even linked on the Secular Outpost (you know, Lowder, Lippar, Tanis, et al).
But, what is REALLY FUNNY is that that you READ that we have readers and, therefore, you must be made up! Therefore, Fransuave refutes himself. Alas, but such is the case with atheists.
John Loftus: Therefore Jesus is both created and uncreated;
Paul: Not in the same sense.
John Loftus: Therefore, Jesus is both an omniscient and also not an omniscient being.
Paul: Didn't Craig teach you to say, "with respects to his human nature, he was notm omniscient. With respects to his divine, he was." Oh, that's right, you ditched school that day.
The same for the rest of your claims. All you've done is to *explain* aspects of the hypostatic union. What you've not done is to point out a problem.
So, any takers? Aaron, this was for you. You said it was, *IMPOSSIBLE.*
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteP1: Aaron cannot be 100% Aaron and 100% Ford Mustang at the same time.
ReplyDeleteP2: Aaron cannot be 100% Aaron and 100% Paul at the same time
C1: Therefore, it is impossible that Jesus could be 100% God and 100% man at the same time.
Now that is some brilliant reasoning. It's easily on a par with the Many things are arbitrary, therefore the definition of human is arbitrary argument that ido posted a few days ago.
It is, indeed, such an original, creative, and audacious bit of argumentation that many philosophy professors may not even recognize it for what it is: and, confusing it with an inductive fallacy, might consequently mark a student down for attempting so bold a syllogism.
As Louis Wu would say, there ain't no justice . . .
So, allow me to propose a summary of all the above. Category mistake. On we go. That about right?
ReplyDeleteWell Ken if my arguments are so stupid why dont you refute them instead of just making empty claims?
ReplyDeleteAt least Paul and Travis are engaging me rather than making childish insults.
Hi Travis,
ReplyDeleteIt would first be necessary for you to tell us what is meant by "infinite."
Everywhere.
It depends on the definition, but we may very well say that Jesus was indeed infinite, in which case you would need to prove that finitude is a necessary property of being a human, such that not being finite would necessarily entail non-humanness, and that it is not merely an accidental property.
Material beings with a finite amount of mass and volume (such as a homo sapien) are not infinite.
But God is immaterial and is allegedly located at all places and at all times. A homo sapien cannot do this.
For instance, all the humans of whom I am aware in the history of the world have been less than ten feet tall. However, if an entity were over ten feet tall this would not necessarily entail that said entity was not human.
Irrelevant. I just clarified my infinite/finite statement so Im eager to hear on what you have to say about a physical man limited in mass and volume vs. an immaterial creator of everything that is everywhere at all times.
Perhaps I am confusing you with someone else, but haven't you claimed before that you used to be a Christian, and not only that, a Calvinist? If so, I find it astounding that you even thought this would be a problem.
I do claim to have been a Christian in the past, yes. But I never claimed to be a Calvinist. I never got into the doctrine of Calvinism.
Incidentally, since Calvinists believe that there are no atheists, yet they believe that ex-Christians were never really Chrsitians to begin with, what would you categorize me as? You cant say Im REALLY an atheist because we all supposedly know that there is a God according to your worldview, and you cant call me a Christian, either former or currently. So what do you think I really am?
First, sinfulness / being cursed with original sin is not a necessary property of mankind such that if an entity does not posses the property of being cursed with original sin then that entity is necessarily not a human. That much should have been obvious given the fact that God originally created human beings without original sin.
But that was before Adam and Eve screwed everyhting up. Yes I agree with your point, but it is irrelevant and my argument still stands. Because God cursed Adam and Eve and all descendants of them for all eternity starting at the point in time where the fruit of knowledge was eaten. What my argument is saying more is that it is not logically possible for any human to be born after Adam and Eve without being cursed with original sin. In this case, Im not specifically using Jesus lack of sin to claim he isnt human, but more than his lack of sin was a logical impossibility or the breaking of the principles of original sin.
As for Jesus' being a "descendant of Adam", you should have been aware that Jesus is not descended from Adam in the way meant when we claim that all descendants of Adam are cursed with original sin. Rather, He is the "second Adam" (1 Corinthians 15: 22, 45; Romans 5:12-21)—the one who, instead of sinning, keeps the law perfectly.
Irrelevant. I assumed you knew more about original sin than this. It is a fact that original sin is put on everyones head BEFORE THEY EVER COMMIT A SINGLE ACTION. I, Aaron Kinney, could, in theory, have never broken a single law of God and I would STILL be a sinner, because God assigns guilt to everyone without before there are any actions for them to be blamed for. Thats why original sin is an illogical absurdity.
And a second Adam would still be a descendant of Adam. Youre using special pleading to say that "Jesus was descended in a DIFFERENT way..." How many ways can people descend from their anscestors? You make babies and then those babies make babies. Pretty simple. Did Jesus share Adams blod or not? And a second Adam is just an Adam Jr. to me. Thats definitely a descendant. Even if there were a special descendancy as you claim, it would not negate the typical descendancy that you and I are traditionally familiar with.
Now time for Paul,
Paul: Jesus was not a hybred of God and man, which your argument assumes. Jesus was both fully God and fully man.
Yes. And I am fully Aaron Kinney and fully Ford Mustang GT. No wait, I am fully Aaron Kinney and fully the ghost of Chrsitmas past. I am both fully finite Aaron Kinney and fully the infinite universe. By the way, I did not assume a hybrid 50/50 mix of God and man, since you already cleared up my question earlier about being both 100% god and 100% man... but now I agree with you that instead we can use the turm "fully".
I contend that one can only be "fully" one specific entity at any given time. Now, what I mean is of course I can be fully Aaron Kinney and fully homo sapien and fully American and all that, but I CANNOT be fully Aaron Kinney and fully a Ford Mustang or fully the ghost of Christmas past, etc...
The second person of the Trinity (the son), at a point in time, took on a human nature. Jesus therefore has two natures. One is fully divine and the other is fully human. These two are not mixed.
Is it possible for one entity to have two seperate distinct natures? Can you give me other examples jsut for argument sakes of a single entity with two seperate, distinct, natures?
Furthermore, man and god have natures that are mutually exclusive. Sure you said that the natures didnt mix, but how can two distinct and exclusive natures NOT mix when they are in the SAME SINGLE entity? To have two natures NOT mix would require that they reside in two seperate entities. Im sure you disagree with that. Care to explain why Im wrong?
So, as one commenter suggested, all you're saying is that a man is a man and God is God. Yeah, we already knew that, Aaron.
Exactly. You revealed more than you know. man is man and God is God. Two natures. two entities. distinct. unmixable (you conceded that they arent mixed). they cannot be found within the same entity.
So, Jesus was not finite *in the same sense* that he was infinite. Jesus was finite *in respects to his human nature, but not in respects to his divine nature.
Wait.. I thought you said those two natures couldnt mix. How did they end up in the same entity? How can two natures exist in the same entity? And assuming they can, how can they not mix?
You want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to have the properties of two entities that are seperate and distinct but you want to magickally squish them into the same entity for convenient storytelling purposes.
Not in the same sense.
Not in the same sense. Not in the same sense. Thats all you can say whenever you get stuck. You are making up imaginary "senses" in an attempt to weasel out of a contradiction or other logical problem that your theology is held accountable to. What sense do you speak of then? What is it, an empty referent? A black check that you can cash in whenever you are stuck? "Not in the same sense!" is your only weapon.
Ransom and Sine Nomine:
You didnt touch my original sin argument. And if my Mustang/Aaron argument is a category mistake or arbitrary or otherwise inapplicable to the God/man entity, then could you give me an analogy or comparison that would NOT be a category mistake?
Can you provide an example where one entity is two beings at once in the same way that Jesus was both God and Man? Help me make sense of it in my head so that I can see just how real your God is. ;)
"I can't be X, therefore Jesus can't be X."
ReplyDeleteLet me play around with this:
1. Aaron can't be a woman, therefore his "girlfriend" can't be a woman.
2. I can't be smart, therefore Aaron can't be smart.
3. I can't be an atheist, therefore Aaron can't be an atheist.
4. Aaron can't finish a bottle of Kiltlifter, therefore I cannot finish a bottle of Kiltlifter.
5,. Aaron can't be a dog, therefore his dog can't be a dog.
Hi Aaron,
ReplyDeleteTravis was giving you exactly the right answers here, but you seem to have derailed the discussion. Let's see:
>> It would first be necessary for you to tell
>> us what is meant by "infinite."
>
> Everywhere.
Umm, OK, so God is everywhere. You seem to be defining 'infinite' in terms of omnipresence. Let's run with that for a moment. Classically, Christians have defined omnipresence in terms of omniscience and omnipotence. So what you really have to argue here is that the properties of being ignorant and/or weak are kind-essential to being human. I don't think you can pull this off. Ignorance and weakness may be *common* properties or *universal* properties of all actual humans, but that doesn't mean they're kind-essential to being human. And if they're not, then God the incarnate Son can remain omniscient and omnipotent and remain fully human.
In _The Logic of God Incarnate_, Thomas Morris argues that your kind of objections can be handled by drawing three distinctions: common properties vs. kind-essential properties, being fully human vs. being merely human, and having x vs. being identical to x. I haven't seen anything in your argumentation that can't be handled by an appeal to those distinctions, each of which I think can be defended on their own grounds in a non-ad-hoc way.
So, for instance, you bring up the issue of men having a mass and volume. Well, sure, but that's a property of their bodies. God the Son did take upon himself a human body (as well as a human soul), but he is not *identical* with his body. Rather, he *has* a body (this is Morris's third distinction noted above). Since the second Person of the Trinity is not identical with the body he assumed, the properties of the latter do not transfer to the former, and vice-versa.
Your material on original sin is just weird. I don't think you can make the case that having original sin is kind-essential to being human. And if you can't, then God the Son can be fully human even if he doesn't have original sin. You say, "it is not logically possible for any human to be born after Adam and Eve without being cursed with original sin." I find this incredible. *Logically* impossible? Why in the world would anyone want to think such a thing? Do you have some Scriptures for that one :-)
Wasn't Jesus born innocent simply because his father, so to speak, was the Holy Spirit. He was descended from David and Adam through his mother, but his father was God.
ReplyDeleteAaron: Yes. And I am fully Aaron Kinney and fully Ford Mustang GT. No wait, I am fully Aaron Kinney and fully the ghost of Chrsitmas past.
ReplyDeletePaul: Aaron, you need to give an argument. So far your argument is:
Since Aaron cannot be fully man and mustang then Jesus can't be fully God and man.
Sorry if I don't find this compelling. So, if you can put forth an actual argument, I'd appreciate it.
Remember, *you* were the one who said that the hypostatic union was *impossible* and so *you're* going to have to put forth an argument.
Aaron: Can you give me other examples jsut for argument sakes of a single entity with two seperate, distinct, natures?
Paul: yeah, a penut butter and jelly sandwhich.
The sandwhich is ONE entity, but it two seperate entities in the one entity (penut butter and jelly).
But, even if I couldn't, why would that mean that the person of Jesus could not have two distinct natures? Give an argument.
Aaron: Furthermore, man and god have natures that are mutually exclusive. Sure you said that the natures didnt mix, but how can two distinct and exclusive natures NOT mix when they are in the SAME SINGLE entity?
Paul: Are you saying that the hypostatic union is impossible because Aaron Kinney does not "get it?" Let's say I don;t know *how* it could happen, how does that translate to, "it can not happen?"
So, give an argument.
Aaron: Exactly. You revealed more than you know. man is man and God is God. Two natures. two entities. distinct. unmixable (you conceded that they arent mixed). they cannot be found within the same entity.
Paul: Are you just going to repeat your conclusion? I already know that you *say* that it is impossible, now, give the argument.
Aaron: Wait.. I thought you said those two natures couldnt mix. How did they end up in the same entity?
Paul: God the Son took upon Himself a human nature. These two natures are the person of Christ jesus. That's how. And, they don't mix. Yhey are not material and so and don;t know what you mean by mixing. You seem to think that Jesus' body is the beaker and the natures are like liquid you'd poor into the beaker. Thus you ignorance of Christian theology.
Anyway, can we get an argument?
Just repeating that it is impossible does not really mean much to us here. I mean, materialism is impossible? You want proof? Well, it's impossible!
AARONS ARGUMENT BEGS THE QUESTION
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately Aaron makes that old Descarte error of inserting his assertion as his premise:
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.
Did you spot it? The whole argument is designed to prove whether or not Jesus could have been a descendant of Adam or Eve (point #4). Yet in his first premise he makes that assumption (given that he assumes Jesus was human and not Adam or Eve). That is, he makes the assumption of his conclusion in his first premise, thus invalidating his argument.
Greg, Travis, Uppity,
ReplyDeleteIt is essential to man to be God's image bearer in an analogous way.
The image is not the thing imaged.
God is not an image bearer of himself in an analogous way.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAARONS OTHER ARGUMENT BEGS THE QUESTION.
ReplyDeleteAaron said
1. Man is finite.
2. God is infinite.
3. A God cannot be finite.
4. Jesus could not have been a man.
The whole point of this argument is to provide some rational basis to refute the Christian claim that Jesus was fully human and fully Divine (point #4). But he begins with a premise that takes for granted all men (including Jesus) are finite. The Christian claim is that Christ was God eternally so the "fact" of a finite Christ in his first premise presupposes, and therefore begs the question, the conclusion he is trying to resolve by his 4th point.
His facts are not only not true, the argument is not valid.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.multifaithnet.org/images/content/seminarpapers/ACritiqueofThomasV_Morris'sUseofNaturalKindTermsinTheLogicofGodIncarnate.htm
ReplyDeleteAaron said:
ReplyDeleteYou didnt touch my original sin argument.
Which raises the question: How many specious arguments must one person tolerate from another before concluding that the latter is not worth his time?
Regarding Fundamentalist Atheists, my threshold is one. Granted, this threshold is wholly arbitrary; however, since many things are arbitrary, there is no reason why my tolerance threshold for codswallop should not also be. Deal with it.
And if my Mustang/Aaron argument is a category mistake or arbitrary or otherwise inapplicable to the God/man entity, then could you give me an analogy or comparison that would NOT be a category mistake?
Another brilliant rhetorical coup! Again, such a nuanced example of the polemical art that a less competent philosophy professor might mistake it for an attempt to shift the burden of proof, and mark you down even further. :)
But, what is REALLY FUNNY is that that you READ that we have readers and, therefore, you must be made up! Therefore, Fransuave refutes himself. Alas, but such is the case with atheists.
ReplyDeleteNow THAT's funny, Paul!
Ransom is a textbook example of why Chrsitianity is dying in the western world.
ReplyDeleteAfter Paul invited me to come here and play with you guys, and after I threw together a few 30 second arguments to see how you guys would dissect them, I get insulted by Ransom as if Im poking my nose in here where it deosnt belong or soemething. While I only came over here at the request of Manata.
Sometimes I dont know why I try to be so nice to Paul and crew, especially considering the amount of derision he heaps onto me.
Paul said:
Paul: yeah, a penut butter and jelly sandwhich.
I do not agree that that is analogous. Can you support your assertion and explain how a peanut butter and jelly sandwich is analogous to an entity that is fully God and fully Man?
Is a peanut butter and jelly sandwich fully peanut butter and fully jelly?
So where are we now? We have a couple of sloppy arguments that I put together and quickly got them defeated. Paul also provided a wholly inadequate attempt at explaining the fully god, fully man issue with his peanut butter and jelly analogy.
Ill check back later to see if there is any further development of the peanut butter jelly thing, and I will try to think up more arguments of my own as well.
Uppity said:
There's no reason to buy the dogma that its part of the *essence* of humanity to be created, despite the fact that it may be highly *common* for human beings to be contingent or created individuals
Isnt this contrary to Christian dogma? Doesnt Chrsitianity hold that all humans, indeed everything, is necessarily created by God? Isnt it true that Chrsitianity holds that the *essence* of everything includes its necessarily being created by a creator God?
Uh Aaron.
ReplyDeleteThe sandwish analogy is one that shows that ONE entity can be made up of two entities. You asked this question.
The sandwhich can be called ONE entity (just like Jesus) but the ONE sandwhich aslo has two entities making up the one. Jesus the ONE person has a dive and human nature. You said this makes no sense for one entity to have two entities. I simply pointed out ONE entity that has two entities.
Anyway, I'm glad you admit to having your arguments dissmantled. Oh, and quit taking refutations as if someone is being mean to you. Man-up, Aaron.