If God Is All Powerful, Can He Make A Rock So Big, That Even He Cannot

[reyb]

........
 
i don't see how you are answering the paradox though. God still can't lift the rock if he created it that way. i realize we can say "oh well, God can't lie, so it's not like it's much of a restriction or paradox". but it's still a paradox. a paradox with a christian response, but a paradox nonetheless.

The omnipotence paradox states that: If a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task which this being is unable to perform; hence, this being cannot perform all actions. Yet, on the other hand, if this being cannot create a task that it is unable to perform, then there exists something it cannot do.

As I have explained earlier. The bottom line behind the idea of omnipotence paradox is practically saying ‘God is not omnipotence if God cannot lie’ or ‘God is powerful if He lies’. Therefore, this paradox is definitely not referring to One and Only True God.

Make me convince that this paradox is referring to true God and then, we can reason out together. But as far as I am concern, God’s inability to lie is a proof that His Power is His Word.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i admire your approach to the question rey. it is truly a solidly christian approach, and not caught up in all the 'rational this' and 'logical that' stuff that almost everyone else gets caught up with.

[reyb]

i admire your approach to the question rey. it is truly a solidly christian approach, and not caught up in all the 'rational this' and 'logical that' stuff that almost everyone else gets caught up with.

Thank you.

[reyb]

This is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox (Sorry I did not quoted it in my previous post).
 

The omnipotence paradox states that: If a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task which this being is unable to perform; hence, this being cannot perform all actions. Yet, on the other hand, if this being cannot create a task that it is unable to perform, then there exists something it cannot do.

Edited July 29, 2014 by reyb

[reyb]

a kind of interesting idea. i would add that God at least theologically does the illogical. he incarnates as a human. he also is the trininty... which is known to be a paradox itself.... that is, God is the Father, God is Jesus, God is the Holy Spirit, but neither the Father, Jesus or the Holy Spirit are each other... even though basic logic indates that this should be the case.

 
 

I find that claim to be both erroneous and alarming.

The doctrine of the Trinity is a conclusion to which man cannot arrive through reason alone. It is certainly NOT philosophy. The doctrine of the Trinity was revealed to us by the Father, the first person of the Blessed Trinity, through the sending of Jesus Christ, the second person of the Blessed Trinity, when He became Incarnate and dwelt among us. It HAD to be revealed to us by God Himself precisely because it was beyond the reach of our human understanding to arrive at a realisation of that truth on the basis of both the natural and philosophical information available to us. We are able to grasp the notion of Trinity just enough to accept it through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Blessed Trinity... nevertheless, the depth of the reality is a mystery that is beyond our grasp.

To SAY that God is not a Trinity is to be wrong.
To TEACH that God is not Trinity is to propagate heresy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox



Many are hooked or caught in this trap because, the very definition of omnipotence, as it was appreciated by anyone who believe that ‘God is omnipotent’, bring them into that hole. They thought they understand what is ‘God’s omnipotence’ really mean without knowing Jesus Christ himself. Thus, I said

Unfounded understanding about God’s power will certainly lead to erroneous conclusion that God has limits. They thought, if God cannot lie then, to believe that God can do everything must be wrong. Thus, many are saying that God can do lie (in order to justify that God can do everything) but willed not to lie.

So, why I am telling you about this?

Because, I give thanks in your last post. I said to myself, ‘At last, somebody see what I am talking about’. Later on, I feel ashamed of myself. I should not take any credit for myself because, I learned it not by my own talent. I am not lying to you. I know, God alone can give it therefore, God alone should take it.

Then, I feel I must do my duty to all of you and that is, to inform you once again that you must seek the real Jesus Christ. I know you believe in this historical Jesus Christ but, that Jesus is a ‘non-existing’ one.

The difference between the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and the omnipotence paradox is very minimal. In the Holy Trinity you believe in ‘one God in three persons". The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity). And you (all of you Trinitarians) know that this concept is illogical or irrational thus, you call it ‘mystery’. As it was stated in Christianity.com, ‘I admit that no one fully understands it. It is a mystery and a paradox. Yet I believe it is true’. (Please see http://www.christianity.com/god/trinity/god-in-three-persons-a-doctrine-we-barely-understand-11634405.html).

The only difference between the doctrine of the Holy Trinity (God’s paradox or Trinity paradox) and the omnipotence paradox is, you do not put your faith that this ‘omnipotence paradox’ is a mystery. Thus, you are still trying your best to rationalize it. Of course, in Trinity paradox, you already gave up and surrendered thus, you call it ‘mystery’.

But suppose, you insist that God can create a rock he cannot lift and at the same time He can lift it, without admitting, God is lying in this scenario and call the entire process ‘mysterious’. Do you think, you can get out of that pit?

Believing in illogical and irrational ideas is the same as submitting yourself to lies. As I have said in my other topic, True disciples are not irrational believers because, the Spirit of God is not irrational being. Who teach you to become irrational and illogical follower?

The mystery of God is not the ‘Holy Trinity’ because, the mystery of God is Christ himself (Col 2:2). The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is a deception. It is a deception because (one of the many reasons) it teaches you not to seek the real Jesus Christ and taught you to disown the real One by accepting this non-existing Jesus Christ – your historical Jesus Christ.


As I have said,

Christ is God’s omnipotence and seeing his coming is the reason why we believe that nothing is impossible with God. This coming of Christ is the ‘reason’ or ‘rationalization’ why we believe that nothing is impossible with God and God alone can do it (for us).

Seek the real Jesus Christ and you will find Him. Edited July 29, 2014 by reyb

[dairygirl4u2c]

saying something is a paradox is not the same as saying God can lie. unless, you insist on it as a matter of logic? the paradox arises because the father is God the son is God and the spirit is God, but neither the father the son o the spirit is the other one. you could i suppose force one to be the same or somehting, an concluce that anything else is a lie. but that is more the person claiming it is a lie.

 

when we look at the bible we are forced to conclude there is somehting to this trinity stuff. maybe they are all God and ae all the same just in different persons? perhaps i could be open to a doctrine that isn't paradoxical. but there is still something to this.

 

"go forth baptizing them in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy spririt"

"our Lord and God, Jesus Christ"

and there are plenty of references to the God being referred to separate from Jesus, and in reference to the father.

[reyb]

Even the devil quoted verses in the scripture (Luke 4:9). Therefore, quoting verses in proving the Trinity cannot guarantee its truthfulness.

If you are not aware of this. The similarity between ‘omnipotence paradox’ and the ‘Trinity paradox ‘ was centered on questions about God’s power. Both of them are hinges in incorrect understanding about Power of God or Christ of God . As you can see in omnipotence paradox, they were caught into that trap because of their erroneous understanding about ‘God’s omnipotence’.

It is the same thing in Trinity paradox. The core teaching in this doctrine was founded on a belief that The Christ of God was already come, and I called it Historical Jesus Christ because, they believed, accepted and proclaimed that He came into this world more or less 2000 years ago as of this year, 2014. This historical Jesus was believed and accepted by Today’s Christians as The Christ or The Power of God.

Of course, Christ is the Power of God and Wisdom of God. (1 Cor 1:24) But who told you that this historical Jesus, the second person in the Trinity, was the same Jesus Christ in eyes of all God’s witnesses like Apostle Paul, Luke, Moses, Jonah etc. etc?

Who told you that they are referring to your historical Jesus Christ?

Edited July 29, 2014 by reyb

[dairygirl4u2c]

you are correct that the historical Jesus may be different than the Jesus that has developed as a myth.

 

but i gave plenty of biblical evidence to support Jesus being God, and being a third person that is very important. I could get behind the trinity not being a paradox, and there's a different way to interpret the situation. but as it sits, the trinity is very much based on the bible. it also has orthodoxy behind it.... if it has all this weight behind it, why would i want to believe something else?

 

even if you don't accept the bible as the final authority, i can't see not deferring to it.

[reyb]

You readily assume many things in your favour. You even excluded the possibility that your historical Jesus is a myth by itself. As I have said in this forum many times, the historical reality of this Jesus is just a ‘belief’ of your early fathers.

In Jesus myth theory (please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory), their dilemma is how to separate Jesus as a myth from historical Jesus. We will go back in this issue.

But I am simply asking. Who told you that they (God’s witnesses) are referring to your historical Jesus Christ?

Edited July 30, 2014 by reyb

[dairygirl4u2c]

the biblical witnesses we would assume are referring to Jesus the historical figure. why should we assume otherwise? what evidences do you have?

 

do you propose the idea of a trinity that isn't a paradox? how would you describe it if it's not a paradox? what's the relationship between the three persons and all that?

[reyb]

I think I did not make my previous statement a little bit clearer. As I were saying, you excluded the possibility that this Jesus – the one I called historical Jesus – is a myth by itself.

I am not proposing anything in relation to Trinity, whether it is a paradox or not or whatever because, it only follows that there should be no Trinity if your Jesus is a myth. This is the reason why I asked, ‘Who told you that all God’s witnesses like Paul, Moses, ….etc…etc are referring to your historical Jesus?’ And you said …

the biblical witnesses we would assume are referring to Jesus the historical figure. why should we assume otherwise? what evidences do you have?

Before, I answer your other interest like ‘my evidences’ in assuming otherwise. May I know, who are these biblical witnesses you are saying? (Just give me a few example).

[dairygirl4u2c]

at the end of Mark is the reference to baptizing in the name of the father and of the son etc.  then we have paul and peter.

 

Romans 9:5 - ...Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
Titus 2:13-15 - ...our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,
Hebrews 1:8 - But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever"
2 Peter 1:1 - ...the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ"

 

i would appreciate if you answered how the trinity should be understood and such. it almost sounds like you are trying to shroud yourself in mystery and be aloof as to your beliefs, while criticizing others for their beliefs

[reyb]

at the end of Mark is the reference to baptizing in the name of the father and of the son etc.  then we have paul and peter.
 
Romans 9:5 - ...Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
Titus 2:13-15 - ...our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,
Hebrews 1:8 - But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever"
2 Peter 1:1 - ...the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ"
 
i would appreciate if you answered how the trinity should be understood and such. it almost sounds like you are trying to shroud yourself in mystery and be aloof as to your beliefs, while criticizing others for their beliefs

It seems you do not hear me right.

I too believe that ‘Jesus is Lord’. But we (or should I say us) are not referring to your historical Jesus. This is the reason why I do not accept the truthfulness of the Trinity. As far as I am concern, there is no such thing as ‘Holy Trinity’ because true God is not a Triune God or Trinity. It is a lie and thus, this God (as Trinity) is a non-existing God.

Therefore, I am not the one who should explain how to read or understand it. As I have said,
 

The mystery of God is not the ‘Holy Trinity’ because, the mystery of God is Christ himself (Col 2:2). The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is a deception. It is a deception because (one of the many reasons) it teaches you not to seek the real Jesus Christ and taught you to disown the real One by accepting this non-existing Jesus Christ – your historical Jesus Christ.

You mention about Paul and Peter as if you are saying they are your witnesses about the existence of your Jesus. Was Apostle Paul present during 'Jesus days and crucifixion'? Edited August 2, 2014 by reyb

[reyb]

Who among God’s holy men (like Moses and other holy prophets including Luke and Paul) saw with their own eyes this Jesus of Nazareth? Who among them saw his miraculous birth and death on the cross?

Let us all be honest. If this historical Jesus is true then, none of them saw Him. And if none of them saw Him, how they become true witnesses of God? This is the reason why I dare you to prove it to yourself. Judge yourself of whatever you believe.

I do not need to push myself up, as if I consider myself inferior to you or to anybody else. I simply put myself where I should be in trying to warn you.

The historical existence of Jesus is just a product of your early father’s understanding or interpretation or rendition as they read the scriptures. They thought that this Gospel is a narration of past events but, it should not be taken that way because it is not a historical book.

The Gospel book is a Christian literature which should be read in order to reach a certain level of spiritual maturity – to become like the writers themselves as God’s true witnesses. But seeing the Truth behind this story without ‘God’s powerful works’ is impossible because, God alone can reveal his Truth, namely Christ. Thus, they are always saying ‘Wait for the Lord to come and He will come’ to reveal the mystery behind the Gospel story.

On the other hand, seeing this book as a ‘narration of past events’ will not serve its purpose because you will end believing - even in the absence of anything factual - in a reality that never took place. As you can see, you no longer seek for ‘God’s powerful works’ of revealing himself. You simply receive and believe in that Jesus you saw in the story.

What is wrong with that? The problem is this ...that the Gospel story is not a historical reality.

This is (the Gospel book as a Christian literature’ has esoteric teaching) the teaching that was downplayed in Rome.
 

Clement of Alexandria records that his followers said that Valentinus was a follower of Theudas and that Theudas in turn was a follower of St. Paul the Apostle.[4]Valentinus said that Theudas imparted to him the secret wisdom that Paul had taught privately to his inner circle, which Paul publicly referred to in connection with his visionary encounter with the risen Christ (Romans 16:25; 1 Corinthians 2:7; 2 Corinthians 12:2-4; Acts 9:9-10), when he received the secret teaching from him.[citation needed] Such esoteric teachings were downplayed in Rome after the mid-2nd century.[5]

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentinus_(Gnostic))

Edited August 3, 2014 by reyb

[dairygirl4u2c]

you don't have to per se explain the 'trinity' especially if you don't believe in it.

 

but do you aknowledge Jesus is God? do you aknowledge the father is God? do you think Jesus and the father are the same person? and if so, how do you get out of him refering to 'father' as separate from him, and the verse 'baptizing them in the name of the father and son and holy spirit"

 

you don't have to explain the 'trinity' but how do you explain all those relationships there?