(Nancy): fully divine and fully human
Greg, Nancy, and James Todd todds@pa.net
Fri, 13 Feb 1998 18:46:45 -0500 (00887435205, 199802132346.SAA11964@emh1.pa.net)
WALT, JR
>Nancy,
>
>Once again your brilliant rhetoric (ie. bullshi*) is indicative of your
intelligence.
NANCY
Ah, Walt, it's good to see that you haven't changed. You still have a bag of
ad hominems in the place of reasoned argument.
WALT, JR
>Why you can't have a cordial dialogue is beyond me Nancy.
NANCY
Were you offended by the word bullshit? Next time I'll just call your tripe
stercus - that's bullshit in Latin.
>WALT, JR
> As for the analogy, it is not the ice and liquid that are suppose to be
the same at the same time, it is the essence (H2O). My claim was never that
the liquid and solid could be the same substance at the same time any more
than I would say that the Son is the Father and the Father is the Son at the
same time...that is false. However, the Son is God and the Father is God
(coequal in essence) just as the liquid is H2O and the ice is H2O (coequal
in essence).
>That was the simple intent of the analogy.
>
>Walt Jr.
NANCY
So then please explain to me, Walt, why you posted this analogy in response
to the fully human-fully divine thread if you meant it to apply to the
trinity? I wasn't discussing the trinity. I was talking about the claim that
Jesus was fully human and fully divine. I asked you if you meant that human
and divine were just different forms of the same substance. You seemed to be
implying this when you said that water and ice are just different forms of
H(2)O. But, of course, you didn't respond to this straightfoward quesiton.
You also claimed that your H(2)O analogy was more appropriate than the fully
cotton/fully wool analogy, but you haven't explained how it is better. You
have just muttered something about the Son being the Father and the Father
being the Son just as water is liquid H(2)O and ice is solid H(2)0. This
analogy of yours simply doesn't work with the fully human-fully divine claim
unless. Is Jesus H(2)O and fully ice and fully water? Of course not. That
would be a logical absurdity, just as it is absurd to claim that Jesus was
fully divine and fully human, just as it would be absurd to claim that a
shirt is fully wool and fully cotton. So now you are changing your tune and
claiming that you really meant that your analogy to refer to the trinity. Of
course, the analogy doesn't really work for the trinity, either, as Adnan's
post showed
Nancy Todd
todds@pa.net
For anyone who is interested, here is the original exchange:
CLAIRE wrote:
Orthodox Christians believe that Jesus was fully human (as well as fully
divine).
NANCY replied:
Gee, this is the third or fourth time this week that I have asked how Jesus
could be *fully* divine and *fully* human. This is an oxymoron. It is, as
Till has often pointed out, like saying that a shirt is fully wool and fully
cotton. The two are mutually exclusive.
WALT, JR wrote:
Nancy,
Wool and cotton are poor analogies. A better one, though still not perfect,
would be water. Ice and liguid (sic) water are both H(2)O, yet they are
different forms. In other words, their essesnce is the same, but the
substance is in a different forms. This is much better than your cloth
illustration.
Walt Jr.
NANCY wrote:
Walt, are you arguing that human and divine are simply two forms of the same
substance? Do you mean to say that the only difference between human and
divine is the physical state? Are you saying that sometimes Jesus was
"water" and other times he was "ice"? Are you arguing that Jesus moved back
and forth between these physical states? Can H(2)O be fully solid and fully
liquid at the same time?
Did you get this H(2)O analogy from C.S. Lewis or Billy Graham? It sounds
like the stupid ant analogy.
WALT, JR wrote:
Nancy,
As usual, you do not read posts carefully. If you read my post again, you
will see that I said that my analogy was not perfect, though it was better
than your cloth one. The essential intent of my post was to give a better
analogy. Liquid and solid water would be analogous to the separate forms of
Christ and the Father, yet the essence of water is H(2)O which would be
analogous to the essence of God. Certainly this analogy breaks down, but it
is better than the cloth one.
Walt Jr.
NANCY wrote:
Bullshit, Walt. The cloth analogy is intended to show the stupidity of
claiming that Jesus was fully human and fully divine. Your H(2)O analogy
only proves just how silly the fully human, fully divine claim is since a
given quantity of H(2)O cannot be both fully water and fully ice. Come to
think of it, the H(2)O analogy makes a pretty darned good case against the
fully human, fully divine claim. Maybe I'll start using it myself.
By the way, Dodge Jr, it did not slip our notice that you avoided addressing
all the criticisms I made of your analogy. As usual, you simply reasserted
your original claim. Well, some things never change - death, taxes, and
Dodge, Jr.
---------------------------------------------------