(Nancy): fully divine and fully human
Greg, Nancy, and James Todd todds@pa.net
Sun, 15 Feb 1998 02:18:53 -0500 (00887548733, 199802150718.CAA12355@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.
>
>> Call them what you will, but anyone that has to use that kind of
language whenever they discuss debatable topics is lacking
something...whatever that may be. If that is ad hominen to you, then so be it.
NANCY
Next time I'll get out the thesaurus.
>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.
>>My point proven again.
NANCY
Yes, Walt, I'm just a big dumb-ass. How I ever managed to graduate from
college, magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, and earn a Master's degree is
beyond me. Why, I am so dumb I wonder how I manage to get myself dressed
every day. Why, I am so stupid it's a wonder I can grab my arse with both
hands. Heck, if I had a brain in my head, I'd never use such bad language.
After all, anyone with any intelligence whatsoever would never use a word
like bullshit. Using scatological language is a sure sign of low intelligence.
>
>>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.
>
>Walt Jr.
>> They are by necessity inter-related doctrines. If there were not
Trinity, there could be no orthodox view of the incarnation. Therefore, if
the analogy works for the trinity, then it would certainly work for the
incarnation as well.
>NANCY
> I asked you if you meant that human
>and divine were just different forms of the same substance.
>
>Walt Jr.
>> Wrong terminology...they are not different forms of the same substance.
They are different forms of the same essence. This makes a big difference.
Ice is a substance and liquid water is a substance, however, H2O is the
essence. Same essence, different forms. This is what we mean by
incarnation or trinity.
NANCY
Oh, that clears everything up. We're talking about essences.
>NANCY
> 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 question.
>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.
>
>Walt Jr.
>>It is a better analogy for the simple reason that cotton and wool are not
only different in form, but they are different in essence. There is nothing
the same about those two substances in essence (for all practical purposes).
Water on the other hand can be different in form, yet remain the same in
essence. This is why it is clearly a better analogy.
NANCY
I understand that water and ice are the same chemical compound in different
physical states. Unless you are saying that humanity and divinity are the
same "essence" in different forms, the h2o analogy is irrelevant to the
fully human/fully divine claim. Let me spell it out for you. Jesus is the
shirt. Humanity is the cotton. Divinity is the wool. How can the shirt
(Jesus) be fully cotton (human) and fully divine(wool)? Now, let's look at
your analogy. Jesus is h2o. Humanity is water. Divinity is ice. How can
Jesus (h2o) be fully human (water) and fully divine(ice) at the same time?
>NANCY
> 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.
>
>Walt Jr.
>>The idea of incarnation is not inherently contradictory, unless you take
the incarnation in too anthropomorphically. There is no doubt that there is
a paradox here (I nor anyone I know has ever denied this). However, the
purpose of a paradox often times is to force our minds beyond the natural to
the supernatural. In this case, I am not declaring the divinity of Jesus'
humanity, or suggesting that God became an entirely different kind of God.
Rather, I am claiming that God voluntarily assumed certain limitations upon
the exercise of his infinity. There is nothing contradictory about this
notion, though it is very difficult to grasp in our categories.
NANCY
Yes, it's all a big supernatural mystery that no one can explain or
understand. A paradox. Just like the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Just how can
something that is invisible be pink? But, hey, the Divine Equine is
magnificent in all her glorious (and invisible) pink splendor. It's a
paradox and a mystery.
>NANCY
> 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
>
>Walt Jr.
>>Never 'changed my tune.' Same tune still going on...it's just that my
tune applies to either situation. As for Adnan's post, I never claimed an
airtight analogy, just one that was better than your cloth one. You really
should consider dropping that one since it has no relationship whatesoever
to the incarnation or the trinity.
NANCY
Well, it does have a good relationship to the fully human/fully divine
claim. But I do rather like your icewater analogy too, because it
illustrates the absurdity of the fully human/fully divine songod.
>
>Walt Jr.
>
>P.S. Notice in my original post that I said "their essence is the same but
their substance is in different forms." Your following post was incorrect
as to what I was saying. You followed by asking: "Are you arguing that
human and divine are two forms of the same substance?" No. If you re-read
my post, you will see that I emphasized the different substances yet unified
in essence. Take care Nancy.
NANCY
Well, allow me to correct myself. Are you arguing that human and divine are
two forms of the same essence?
Nancy Todd
todds@pa.net