Can God Pray?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by seekerman

It was more than humanity in the womb of Mary, it was an actual living breathing person who preached, suffered, died, rose after three days and ascended to His, Mary's and His brethren's God and Father.

It wasn't an ontological union between God and His Son, it was an ontological unity.

Joh 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
Joh 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

Hmmm. Jesus said,

"even as we are one"

"I in them, and thou in me"

English isn't all that difficult. I and thou. Not "even as I am one". Nor, "I in them, and I in me". Words have meanings. The term "we" is a PLURAL pronoun. In addition the "I" and the "thou" create an "I and thou" relationship. "I" is a "personal pronoun" denoting the speaker. The word "thou" is a "second person pronoun" denoting one being spoken to. It's real simple... if one believes the words.

There is a clear ontological distinction between the mind and person of the man Jesus Christ... and the Father. However, these two are one. In Jesus, God became a man... and that man was also God.

It is written,

2 Corinthians 5:19
King James Version (KJV)
19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

Notice it doesn't say, "God was Christ". But rather, "God was IN Christ". Who was Christ? The man Jesus who prayed to His Father. Who was in this Christ? God.


It's crystal clear.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Hmmm. Jesus said,

"even as we are one"

"I in them, and thou in me"

English isn't all that difficult. I and thou. Not "even as I am one". Nor, "I in them, and I in me". Words have meanings. The term "we" is a PLURAL pronoun. In addition the "I" and the "thou" create an "I and thou" relationship. "I" is a "personal pronoun" denoting the speaker. The word "thou" is a "second person pronoun" denoting one being spoken to. It's real simple... if one believes the words.

There is a clear ontological distinction between the mind and person of the man Jesus Christ... and the Father. However, these two are one. In Jesus, God became a man... and that man was also God.

It is written,

2 Corinthians 5:19
King James Version (KJV)
19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

Notice it doesn't say, "God was Christ". But rather, "God was IN Christ". Who was Christ? The man Jesus who prayed to His Father. Who was in this Christ? God.


It's crystal clear.

Yes, God was in Christ and He's in us also. God being in Christ makes Him no more God than it makes us God. You referenced the word "we" which indicates two somethings, in this case Jesus was referencing He and His Father and God. 'We are one' suggests that two somethings, which was Jesus and His Father and God, and they were in a unity. We're in a unity with the God and Father of Jesus,as Jesus and His brethren were. Jesus prayer contains several elements of this unity, being one. But not the same entity.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I do apologize taking our conversation down the "maybe" path. It's just that your philosophical view even leaving open the possibility that we could all be the same person is in such stark contrast to my philosophical view that it is inherently impossible for all of us to be the same person. That's the only reason I keep bringing that up. It's not that it proves you are wrong it's that the concept of that even being possible is just so foreign to me.

Regarding the bolded, our views on natures and persons and such are fundamentally different. It's no longer that I claim your view is illogical. Your view is logical within its framework. It's just your view allows for certain things that my view doesn't allow for unless you start to put arbitrary limits on how many natures a single person can have and whether or not any single nature can be duplicated in a person.

I think the best way open up your understanding of what I am saying is to ask question: If God wanted to (not that he does but IF he did) couldn't he add another human nature to himself and appear to us again as a different human, maybe he could add another human nature and thus be George? He would still be the man Jesus he would still be God but he would also be George. I don't think you will find it difficult to believe God could do such a thing.

Now if God so desired could he not add another human nature to your person so that you would be Praxeas and Christina at the same time just as he could be God, Jesus and George at the same time? Aren't these things possible with God and with your understanding of nature and person? There's no logical reason God couldn't do these things right? I'm sure you will answer yes they are possible and then I'm sure you will expound that while it's possible God didn't do it and I'm perfectly fine with that. I just want to make sure you understand that these things are possible in your framework so that I can try and explain once again that our views on nature and person are entirely different.

So with my philosophy of natures and persons its impossible to have a person that is both a mammal and a reptile. A person cannot have two natures with contradictory requirements. It doesn't work with mammal's and reptiles because one is warm blooded and one is not warm blooded. It doesn't work with any person and any natures which possess contradictory requirements. Why is this? Because I arbitrarily restrict a person to having one body, or in more general terms one "mode of existing".

Contrast this with your philosopy of natures and persons. In your philosophy it is possible to have a person that is both a mammal and a reptile. It is possible to such a person to exist because that person can be totally mammal in his mammal nature and totally reptile in his reptile nature. Why? Because while those natures have contradictory requirements they don't matter if that person has "2 different ways of being". He can simeltaneously possess the body of a mammal and also possess another body of a reptile and so he can be both warm blooded and not warm blooded at the same time, just in different ways.

I could go on about the differences between our philosophies but I think the above examples highlight the differences well. In fact I doubt I could find appropriate words to adequately describe and differentiate my philisophy from Prax's but as you can see from the examples there is clearly a difference. Why do I place a restriction on persons to only having one "mode of existing" and what do I mean by it?

Well, I restrict persons this way because it's the simplist explanation to explain everything I see in the world. I don't have to try and find a way of talking about reptiles and mammals as if one person did the actions of both. There's just no need to be able to distinguish whether reptiles and mammals are one person or can be more than 1 person. In fact theres nothing natural that I can think of where it matters if there is one person or two persons involved in the actions of two different beings. So I have no use in the natural world for persons being different than beings. There's no extra explanatory power in having one person be multiple beings.

When it comes to a single person having a divine nature and human nature I go to the only thing I know and that's in the natural world it makes no difference whether one person is two beings. So I extrapolate that it shouldn't matter whether there is one person who is two beings or whether there is two persons for two beings when talking about divine natures and human natures. So I revert back to the simplist explanation that a person and a being are more or less interchangable terms. That is there is one person per being and one being per person.

That's the difference between my and Prax's view.

It's impossible because we ARE separate persons. We aren't talking about a possibility. I KNOW Jesus is God because the bible says so.

God isn't defined existentially nor functionally by humans existentialism or functional ability.

I can also say Persons don't die for three days then come back to life. Persons don't walk on water. etc etc. These are all naturalistic and normative views we have of what a Person is...until we talk about what and who God is and what He can do.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Hmmm. Jesus said,

"even as we are one"

"I in them, and thou in me"

English isn't all that difficult. I and thou. Not "even as I am one". Nor, "I in them, and I in me". Words have meanings. The term "we" is a PLURAL pronoun. In addition the "I" and the "thou" create an "I and thou" relationship. "I" is a "personal pronoun" denoting the speaker. The word "thou" is a "second person pronoun" denoting one being spoken to. It's real simple... if one believes the words.

There is a clear ontological distinction between the mind and person of the man Jesus Christ... and the Father. However, these two are one. In Jesus, God became a man... and that man was also God.

It is written,

2 Corinthians 5:19
King James Version (KJV)
19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

Notice it doesn't say, "God was Christ". But rather, "God was IN Christ". Who was Christ? The man Jesus who prayed to His Father. Who was in this Christ? God.


It's crystal clear.

Aquila just became a Unitarian. Congratulations

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

It's impossible because we ARE separate persons. We aren't talking about a possibility. I KNOW Jesus is God because the bible says so.

I know that Jesus had a God and Father that He shared with His brethern too.

God isn't defined existentially nor functionally by humans existentialism or functional ability.

I can also say Persons don't die for three days then come back to life. Persons don't walk on water. etc etc. These are all naturalistic and normative views we have of what a Person is...until we talk about what and who God is and what He can do.

Let's talk about if Jesus was a person who DID suffer, die, rise on the third day and ascend to His, and His brethren's, Father and God.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by seekerman

I know that Jesus had a God and Father that He shared with His brethern too.

We all do.

Let's talk about if Jesus was a person who DID suffer, die, rise on the third day and ascend to His, and His brethren's, Father and God.

Again? Yes...don't you get tired of asking the same questions over and over?

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Again? Yes...don't you get tired of asking the same questions over and over?

You're all over the place in this, prax. You said..."I can also say Persons don't die for three days then come back to life. Persons don't walk on water. etc etc. These are all naturalistic and normative views we have of what a Person is...until we talk about what and who God is and what He can do."

Now to me, and apparently I'm not understanding your position, that is saying that Jesus wasn't a person, that He was something unidentified, requiring more discussion.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by seekerman

You're all over the place in this, prax. You said..."I can also say Persons don't die for three days then come back to life. Persons don't walk on water. etc etc. These are all naturalistic and normative views we have of what a Person is...until we talk about what and who God is and what He can do."

Now to me, and apparently I'm not understanding your position, that is saying that Jesus wasn't a person, that He was something unidentified, requiring more discussion.

No, that was me pointing out to someone else that when we compare God to Man we make a big mistake because in our NORMAL experience we don't walk on water. Do you? We never SEEN anyone walk on water. We don't die and three days later. it's not NORMAL.

So the fallacy is comparing Human PERSONS to GOD and expecting God to be LIKE us.

So no, I am not all over the place and no you didn't understand

Here is what I said in context

It's impossible because we ARE separate persons. We aren't talking about a possibility. I KNOW Jesus is God because the bible says so.

God isn't defined existentially nor functionally by humans existentialism or functional ability.

I can also say Persons don't die for three days then come back to life. Persons don't walk on water. etc etc. These are all naturalistic and normative views we have of what a Person is...until we talk about what and who God is and what He can do.

Now, you'll need to follow what Jfrog said before you can understand the point that we can't compare God to man and go "Aha! If we can't do it. neither can God"

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

It's impossible because we ARE separate persons. We aren't talking about a possibility. I KNOW Jesus is God because the bible says so.

God isn't defined existentially nor functionally by humans existentialism or functional ability.

I can also say Persons don't die for three days then come back to life. Persons don't walk on water. etc etc. These are all naturalistic and normative views we have of what a Person is...until we talk about what and who God is and what He can do.

I did talk about who god is and what he can do in my post. I said he coul add another nature to himself or to anyone else including you and me. He could even add another human nature to himself and become George Jesus and god. He could add another human nature to you and you could be prax was and Christina. God definitely can do all of this.

My post wasnt limiting god it was explaining that my philosophical views on natures and persons is much different than yours. I find no benefit in allowing one person to be multiple beings except as an attempted explanation for a very small handful of bible verses that appear to claim Jesus is somehow god and man. That's the only benefit in praxs philosophy of nature and persons. It gives one possible explanation for the bible verses which appear to claim Jesus is god and man. There's other explanations though. Some explain those with the trinity model. Others explain those verses in such a way that Jesus isn't god.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I did talk about who god is and what he can do in my post. I said he coul add another nature to himself or to anyone else including you and me. He could even add another human nature to himself and become George Jesus and god. He could add another human nature to you and you could be prax was and Christina. God definitely can do all of this.

My post wasnt limiting god it was explaining that my philosophical views on natures and persons is much different than yours. I find no benefit in allowing one person to be multiple beings except as an attempted explanation for a very small handful of bible verses that appear to claim Jesus is somehow god and man. That's the only benefit in praxs philosophy of nature and persons. It gives one possible explanation for the bible verses which appear to claim Jesus is god and man. There's other explanations though. Some explain those with the trinity model. Others explain those verses in such a way that Jesus isn't god.

You are limiting the PERSON of God based on your philosophy which seems to be based on what you believe Persons are or can or can't be. What is that based on if not human experience?

Im not looking for a benefit. I don't claim this is some benefit we can all experience.