God's existence is not limited. Being in a human, it would be deceptive, and he would appear as a limited being.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How can God have a son while he has no companion.
- Thread starter Link
- Start date
So there is two representing the creator, in this case, one unseen (holy spirit) and another human form (Jesus). It would not be a trinity. How can God die that makes no sense, he is eternal. He would be playing mind games pretending to die and suffer, when God can't be afflicted as he is unlimited.
A deception can not exist if the unusual aspects of it are properly exposed beforehand, though.
Or maybe you disagree?
I don't what you mean. Care to expand?
Laniakea
Not of this world
In Spirit form, you're correct in my understanding that God couldn't suffer--at least not physically. Nor could He physically die. But in taking on human form, it made Him able to be physically tortured and killed.
How does he take human form? Does he cease to be God and make himself limited temporarily? Care to explain? Does he disappear from ruling the universe and Angels and appear in Jesus in limited form? What's maintaining the universe at this point? What is creating everything? If it's still God, then it's just mind games pretending to suffer in Jesus while he is beyond creation and not afflicted.
And why would God going back to being God be a "sacrifice".
Glady!
Your recent posts take the stance that a God that had incarnations would be presenting itself as limited (to a human form), which would be deceitful and therefore unworthy of God.
Am I being fair in saying so? I promise to attempt to do better if you tell me that I am not.
I can understand that God as you conceive Him would not be deceitful. That is fair enough and reasonable.
It is also easy to understand that an incarnation, by definition, has some limitations that some conceptions of God simply won't have. That doesn't necessarily apply to the Holy Ghost of the Trinity, but it would presumably apply to Jesus the Son of God as described by Christian Trinitarianism. At the very least, he was consistently described as having a physical form that was born from a woman, which means that it either lacked omnipresence or appeared to.
There are at least two possible perspectives that can be taken when presented with the idea of a man (in this case Jesus - there are other examples in other doctrines, but let's leave that for some other time) that is somehow also God or at least some form of aspect, manifestation or incarnation of God.
One perspective, which comes easily to Trinitary Christians and even to non-Christians such as me that are well acquaintanced with the Christian claims, is that there is no obvious reason why Ibrahim's God could not do such a thing, although it is definitely not an everyday occurrence. It leads to lots of questions, claims and exceptions, but it is not perceived as a contradiction and neither as pretense or deceipt. Just being so familiar with the claim is doubtlessly a big part of that confort, but my point is that deception is a form of misleading, and it is not obvious to me that there is any true deception involved in that claim. It may be odd that God would somehow express in human form, but there is no obvious reason why it could not happen nor why it would be considered misleading or deception.
You seem to hold a different stance, though. One which involves some degree of confidence that God would not deceive or even surprise people by developing a human incarnation, apparently because it would be important for God to be immediately recognized as the supreme being and not be mistaken for a human being. You call that deception, and even now I am not quite certain about why it would be deception.
Or maybe you believe that it would be literally impossible for God to present even a temporary resemblance of restriction due to time and space. I don't really know. I don't think I can agree, though, for two reasons.
1. It would be imposing an arbitrary limitation to God.
2. And the justification would require the belief that God is somehow subject to human understanding.
The second is explicitly rejected by much of Christianity, incidentally. Many Christians are well at peace with the acceptance that they simply will not understand God's reasons, motivations and plans.
In any case, I don't see how a hypothetical Jesus (or Krishna, for example) in human form would qualify as a deception until and unless we happened to be in a situation with a pre-existing expectation that people could not ever be more than they appear to be.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Jesus was with God his Father when he was in heaven. The term God can be used in various contexts, but when Jesus came to the earth he was not a spirit person in heaven, he was not in heaven at that point, he was flesh and blood. But he knew he was connected to the love he had experienced with the Father before he came to the earth. When he performed certain miracles on the earth, it was because God his Father enabled him to do so. He was not, as someone here declared, 1/3 of God equal to the other thirds. Jesus was fully the Son in heaven, fully the Son of God on earth, and he himself declared the Father was greater than he was. John chapter 14 Jesus helps his disciples to know more about him -- "On that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you are in Me, and I am in you. 21Whoever has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me. The one who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and reveal Myself to him.” Hope that helps.
How so?
Jimmy
King Phenomenon
Jesus’ return. A new heaven and earth.
I suppose that is reasonable grounds to call Jesus a thaumaturge (miracle-maker).
Making that evidence that Jesus is an aspect of Abraham's God is a considerable leap.
Jimmy
King Phenomenon
Why’s it a leap?
Because it is not a given that miracles can only be performed by god or aspects of same.
Jimmy
King Phenomenon
Not really following u
I thought you were saying that Jesus presumably raising people from the dead was evidence that he was in some sense God itself.
If I am mistaken, I apologize. Not a race where my horses are, after all.
Jimmy
King Phenomenon
Oh, I gotcha. So what are these other aspects that can perform miracles?
I don't even believe in miracles, @King Phenomenon
Jimmy
King Phenomenon
So what u said About it being a big leap has no merit
I am just pointing out that you can't simply say that miracles show divinity of the presumed miracle-maker and expect anyone to immediately agree just because.
But if you want to have that expectation... be my guest.