Can God Pray?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Really? What does "person" mean and how have I changed it?

In fact I use the standard "Theological" meaning most Trinitarians use to argue that in their view, we have One Person who is distinct from Himself as Father and Son psychologically.

In other words in their use of the term we have one person.

In the philosophical use, one person.

In the Ontological use, as it pertains to being or existentially, we have at least two

Think about this for a second. A Person to you is at least one BEING. One person per being or one being per person.

Trinitarians have three persons that are One being.

I have two "beings" that are One Person.

In other words I have two different kinds of beings with two different kinds of minds that are both personalized. The fact that it's the same ego personalizing them doesn't change the fact that there are two.

So I have FUNCTIONALLY two persons. One is God and One is Human. If you break down the term Person by it's dictionary definition I have one Human personal being. Then if you use the other definition philosophically/Theologically (Trinitarian), God is also a Person by a completely different definition of the word, there are two.

I don't have an issue with a Personal Relationship With God when it's in fact a Human being (person) in relationship with the Divine Person. And it's all made a reality due to the very real ontological becoming of God as a man. He has a REAL Human identity.

So just sticking with the one definition of person from the Theological standpoint: We have One person who has a God identity and a Human identity.

And lastly, because I am sure someone here will confuse Identity with Individual or Person...

Identity has as a synonym "Personality" but not "Person". Jesus has a Human personality. Or a humanized Personality just as Jesus has a Human nature personalized by His Person.

So the rejection of there being two persons in the Theological sense does not negate there being a real "personal relationship"..the issue is where does the relationship reside. In the PERSON or in the Human Identity vs the Divine Identity

I guess my problem was that I assumed that the word personal, being a derivative of person required a person. I also assumed that a relationship required two things which relate. I assumed then that a personal relationship was about having two persons that somehow relate to each other.

I can see I must have been wrong in that assumption. Clearly you state that you believe a personal relationship can exist between two different beings. Who am I to argue that a personal relationship must have two persons in order to meet the personal and relating parts of a "personal relationship"...

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by seekerman

I'd rather talk specifics. God controls Jesus but is unrelated or Jesus controls God?

Let's talk God and Jesus, the Father and the Son.

How can I discuss with you my belief that there is a general logical phenomenon that occurs which allows Prax's explanation to be logical if you refuse to speak on anything except the specific case of God and Jesus? I'm not trying to sidestep the God and Jesus debate or even make analogies. It's just that I believe there is a single logical phenomenon that forms the basis for his position and even makes it logically possible. If you can understand how the general logical phenomenon works then you will be able to easily apply it to God and Jesus and understand how his beliefs are logically consistent.

Or instead lets go around in circles on the specifics of God and Jesus which you keep getting stuck on because you don't understand how his theology can be logically consistent.

[jfrog]

Seekerman, I want to explain something to you that I think will help you understand Prax's viewpoint. What you call a person, Prax calls a being. Where you say a person can't have two wills, Prax would say a being cannot have two wills, where you would say a person can't know something and not know something at the same time, Prax would say a being can't know something and not know something at the same time. What you call a person is the same thing Prax calls a being.

When you understand and realize that he would agree with every single one of your arguments as long as you replaced the word person with the word being. That's quite eyeopening. There's literally nothing you can say about a person that he wouldn't agree with if instead of using the word person that you used the word being.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I guess my problem was that I assumed that the word personal, being a derivative of person required a person. I also assumed that a relationship required two things which relate. I assumed then that a personal relationship was about having two persons that somehow relate to each other.

I can see I must have been wrong in that assumption. Clearly you state that you believe a personal relationship can exist between two different beings. Who am I to argue that a personal relationship must have two persons in order to meet the personal and relating parts of a "personal relationship"...

It does require a person and God is the subject.

I think you should re-read what I said more carefully since I didn't deny there needs to be two persons. The issue was what is a PERSON and can a PERSON is Human with a Human nature and God with a Divine nature, function in the same way.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I guess my problem was that I assumed that the word personal, being a derivative of person required a person. I also assumed that a relationship required two things which relate. I assumed then that a personal relationship was about having two persons that somehow relate to each other.

I can see I must have been wrong in that assumption. Clearly you state that you believe a personal relationship can exist between two different beings. Who am I to argue that a personal relationship must have two persons in order to meet the personal and relating parts of a "personal relationship"...

Does it take two persons or two minds?