Who is God ? or what are God's attributes ?

[Pegg]

Who set the PRICE?

God set the price, and God paid the price.

 

[fishy]

God set the price, and God paid the price.

Didn't god receive the payment? Not pay the price? Surely Jesus paid the price and you don't believe Jesus is god? And why did god set the price so high, when he could have absolved Adam's sin without any payment at all? He is after all, all powerful, isn't he?

 

[Pegg]

Didn't god receive the payment? Not pay the price?

Death isnt a reward. Only the one who dies receives the payment....the payment being death. But if you consider that Adams life belonged to God, and all the lives of Adams offspring also belonged to God, then God also looses something precious to him.

Surely Jesus paid the price and you don't believe Jesus is god? And why did god set the price so high, when he could have absolved Adam's sin without any payment at all? He is after all, all powerful, isn't he?

Jesus did pay the price on our behalf, but the difference with Jesus is that he did not deserve death. So he wasnt dieing for his own sins like we do, he died for ours. And because Jesus life belonged to God, it was God who paid the price.

 

[fishy]

I think perhaps a little clarity might help your cause Pegg. You have proposed a square circle in 15 dimensions.

Divine justice required a perfect human life to save mankind...and no prophet or messenger was perfect. So God sent one of his holy angels, his most beloved angel, to earth to be born through a woman and thus be 'fully' human.

Divine justice would be god's justice. So god required the human sacrifice of a perfect human in order that he forgive the sin of Adam. Even after god was adamant that sacrifice of any sort was an abomination to him. That's a very interesting point don't you think? To precis god's position; sacrifice of anything at all is an abomination, but I demand the sacrifice of a perfect human. Do you see any conflict there?

The one he sent into the world was Jesus. Born perfect, Jesus life was the equivalent of the life that Adam lost....perfect. So only he could rightly offer to God the price of redemption on behalf of all mankind.

The price was paid to GOD by JESUS in order that all of man be redeemed from the sin of one innocent perfect man.

God set the price, and God paid the price.

Not according to the above, care to reconsider? It's perfectly fine if you don't, just asking that's all.

Death isnt a reward. Only the one who dies receives the payment....the payment being death. But if you consider that Adams life belonged to God, and all the lives of Adams offspring also belonged to God, then God also looses something precious to him.

Are you contending that because god looses something precious to him when Adam dies and when all of us die, he needed to lose something even more precious in order to redeem Adam and the rest of us? Is that the story your proposing? The payment being discussed here is not what the dieing person receives, but the payment god receives in the death of Jesus, the human sacrifice to god on the altar of the cross.

Jesus did pay the price on our behalf, but the difference with Jesus is that he did not deserve death. So he wasnt dieing for his own sins like we do, he died for ours. And because Jesus life belonged to God, it was God who paid the price.

Hadn't god paid enough price by all of our deaths, why did god need to pay an even higher price? After all "But if you consider that Adams life belonged to God, and all the lives of Adams offspring also belonged to God, then God also looses something precious to him"

 

[muhammad_isa]

So when we say that Jesus is Gods Son, it doesnt mean that God reproduced Jesus in the way a man and woman would reproduce a child. It simply means that Jehovah God created Jesus and the close bond they have is similar to that of a father and his son. Its just a 'figure of speech'

Yes, I would agree with that .. the problem is, that this 'figure of speech' leads people into believing that Jesus (peace be with him), is God incarnate!

 

[Mehr Licht]

The Ungrund is the pre-formal abyss from which all forms arise. The Father is the hypostatized eternal will of the Ungrund for existence, personhood, imagination, and manifestation. The Father is the source of the other members of the Trinity by eternal begetting in regards to the Son and eternal procession through the Son with the Holy Spirit. Sophia is the "pure and spotless mirror" [see Wisdom of Solomon] in which the imagination is projected.

 

[Mehr Licht]

That doesn't make sense. If the Creator is God and God is 'Father, Son , and Holy Spirit' - so the Creator needed a creation (Mary) to exist(or be Created again - as in Jesus)?

The Logos existed before the incarnation. The humanity of Jesus was created but the Logos is uncreated. He evenutally took birth through Mary to unite humanity and deity. God took on human nature so that we could become partakers of the Divine Nature. As Saint Athanasius put it " God became man so that man could become god." Godmanhood is the highest teaching of the Christian religion.

by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire.
2 Peter 1:4
​

 

[loverOfTruth]

i've never understood this line of reasoning.

God does not reproduce offspring in the way we do, but that does not mean he cannot have children. If he creates an intelligent being, lets say an angel, that angel is said to be his Son in the scriptures. All angels are called 'sons of God' just as all mankind are called Gods children.

So when we say that Jesus is Gods Son, it doesnt mean that God reproduced Jesus in the way a man and woman would reproduce a child. It simply means that Jehovah God created Jesus and the close bond they have is similar to that of a father and his son. Its just a 'figure of speech'...it doesnt mean he has a humanlike reproductive system. He is not a 'reproducer' he is a 'creator'....he creates life and he is the father of all living things.

I would not have any problem understanding and agreeing with that concept of 'Son of God' (figurative). Anyone close to God, would be a Son of God in that sense. However, if that is the case, why is Jesus(pbuh) (the Son of God' different from all the other 'Son of God'/Messengers mentioned in the bible ?

because those messengers were usually imperfect humans who eventually died due be being born sinners. The messengers of the past could not save mankind...they could only reveal Gods intentions to save mankind. Even Mohammad spoke of Gods intention to save mankind, yes?

You are contradicting yourself - read that again "those messengers were usually imperfect humans who eventually died" . I think at least according to your belief - Jesus(pbuh) died on the Cross, right ? Did Jesus explicitly state (clear and unambiguous) anywhere in the Bible that he would die to save mankind from sin ? I would expect that if that was his main mission in the world - he would at least do that.

Divine justice required a perfect human life to save mankind...and no prophet or messenger was perfect. So God sent one of his holy angels, his most beloved angel, to earth to be born through a woman and thus be 'fully' human.

The one he sent into the world was Jesus. Born perfect, Jesus life was the equivalent of the life that Adam lost....perfect. So only he could rightly offer to God the price of redemption on behalf of all mankind.

"Divine justice required a perfect human life to save mankind" - did Jesus(pbuh) say that anywhere in the Bible ? What about the following statements in the Bible then ? So is God saying Justice means one thing for the mankind and another thing for Himself ?

[Ezekiel 18:20] “The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son.”

And:

[Deuteronomy 24:16] “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.”

Since you brought up Adam(pbuh). According to your example of 'perfect human' Adam(pbuh) would be more of a perfect example since he was born of no father and no mother, whereas Jesus(pbuh) was born of a human mother.

 

[loverOfTruth]

The Logos existed before the incarnation. The humanity of Jesus was created but the Logos is uncreated. He evenutally took birth through Mary to unite humanity and deity. God took on human nature so that we could become partakers of the Divine Nature. As Saint Athanasius put it " God became man so that man could become god." Godmanhood is the highest teaching of the Christian religion.

by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire.
2 Peter 1:4
​

Doesn't sound like monotheism to me. Those concepts of incarnation and Godmanhood sounds more like Hinduism. Even with all that explanation - God(Jesus) needed human(Mary) help to exist and at least some part of Godness had to end (when Jesus died).

And the verse you quoted doesn't explain trinity rather that's exactly why God send messengers/prophets and can apply to any prophet of God.

 

[PolyHedral]

You can't say what God is, you can only say what God is not.

God is not knowable, therefore you cannot speak of God's attributes.

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

"Unknowable" looks like an attribute to me.

 

[idav]

"Unknowable" looks like an attribute to me.

Knowable would be more about our limits not gods.

 

[Mehr Licht]

Doesn't sound like monotheism to me.

I've never been too concerned with the term "monotheism" or if my religion can fit under that classification. I don't believe the term even existed when the New Testament was authored and Jesus certainly never used it.

Those concepts of incarnation and Godmanhood sounds more like Hinduism.

I believe many Hindus do have a concept of the divinity of humanity but I don't believe those ideas are always inline with the Christian understanding of theosis or divinization. This divinization takes place by grace and not because man is literally God.

Even with all that explanation - God(Jesus) needed human(Mary) help to exist and at least some part of Godness had to end (when Jesus died).

The Logos prexesited Mary so he didn't really need her to exist. The incarnation isn't the coming into being of the Logos it's simply the event in which the Logos assumed human nature . Logically I guess you could say he "needed" humanity to exist before he could unite himself with it and save us though. It would be rather pointless to save something that didn't exist.

The assumed humanity of Christ was capable of dying and after the crucifixion he descended into hades to liberate the spirits in captivity. He also resurrected though. Nothing was really lost.

 

[bigbadgirl]

"God" is all that there is and all that will ever be. Human attributes assigned to God were given to God by humans. Humans are incapable of understanding God. To the cosmos, we are no more than ants.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

And the verse you quoted doesn't explain trinity rather that's exactly why God send messengers/prophets and can apply to any prophet of God.

God doesn't send messengers/prophets. That's just some guys claiming that God sent them.

On the other hand, anyone can become a prophet of God.

 

[Madhuri]

Is your God infinite?

He isn't 'my' God. Yes, he is infinite.

 

[Madhuri]

You can't say what God is, you can only say what God is not.

I don't understand that at all. Who are we to say what God is not?
And yet, most are willing to claim that God is infinite, that God is Spirit, that God is Love etc. Because these things are what God explains about himself in the holy books.

 

[839311]

Who is God?

http://www.skierpage.com/images/southparkgod.jpg

 

[Rational_Mind]

He isn't 'my' God. Yes, he is infinite.

The reason I asked that is because it would appear that putting God into a physical form of a picture would appear to make such a being finite.

 

[Madhuri]

The reason I asked that is because it would appear that putting God into a physical form of a picture would appear to make such a being finite.

The person drawing the picture and the person viewing the picture are both aware that the picture does not accurately depict God. That is not possible. If people claimed that the picture is exactly as God appears, then I would have a problem with it. But as I mentioned earlier, pictures are symbolic and are representations of scriptural descriptions of the form of God. Pictures help us feeble humans conceptualise God and understand spiritual concepts. I could go into more specific details if you wish.

But I emphasise, nobody actually thinks that God appears exactly as any of those pictures and the artist never claims that it is.

 

[Rational_Mind]

The person drawing the picture and the person viewing the picture are both aware that the picture does not accurately depict God. That is not possible. If people claimed that the picture is exactly as God appears, then I would have a problem with it. But as I mentioned earlier, pictures are symbolic and are representations of scriptural descriptions of the form of God. Pictures help us feeble humans conceptualise God and understand spiritual concepts. I could go into more specific details if you wish.

But I emphasise, nobody actually thinks that God appears exactly as any of those pictures and the artist never claims that it is.

From your views, has God ever appeared in physical form. You see from my understanding, God has no physical form whatsoever. Because things in physical form become limited, matter can be destroyed. (Note: I did not say mass. There is a difference.)