Open for debate

What do people think Jesus was saying in  John 10. 34-36 where he said -

“Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’? If he called them ‘gods,’ … what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?”

airmano wrote: ...................

We are agreed that Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) exists.   

Using one religious teaching, and ignoring all others, you argue that since He is omniscient, and therefore (by your reckoning) incapable of changing His mind, or taking any decisions, he must be ‘static’.

Omniscience means, of course, the power to know all things; past, present, and future. The Beloved did not gain knowledge by study, trial and error as we do; having to decide along the way what is true and what is not; having to change His mind in order to accommodate new information, and by that process make new decisions. The Beloved’s knowledge is one with His Nature; and this nature is eternal (defined as a duration without beginning and without end, without sooner and later, a permanent ‘Now’).

Knowledge does not preclude action. If it did then I, knowing how to type, would be incapable of so doing. Clearly, I am capable. The Beloved’s absolute knowledge (omniscience) does not prevent Him from acting either.   

I will argue (using some of the teachings that you ignore) that Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) had a plan for the whole of creation even before it existed; and since He knew exactly how that plan would unfold - and since there is no power capable of causing Him to deviate from that plan to even the slightest degree - He had no cause to change His mind. He had only to say ‘Be’ to begin the process of putting His plan into effect.

The only matter to be decided is this: Is He indeed active?

The Catholic Church teaches that Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) continually preserves the existence all created things. The First Vatican Council declared: ‘God, by His Providence, protects all that He has created’, which is to say that He preserves it from relapsing into nothingness: ‘If His Providence did not preserve all things with the same power with which they were created in the beginning they would fall back into nothingness immediately.’ (Denzinger 1784).

In the Qur’an we read: ‘Allāh: there is no god but Him, the Ever Living, the Ever Watchful. Neither slumber nor sleep overtakes Him. All that is in the heavens and in the earth belongs to Him. Who is there that can intercede with Him except by His leave? He knows what is before them and what is behind them, but they do not comprehend any of His knowledge except what He wills. His throne extends over the heavens and the earth; it does not weary Him to preserve them both. He is the Most High, the Tremendous.’ (Al-Baqara: 255).

Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) promises this: ‘(Prophet), if My servants ask you about Me, I am near. I respond to those who call Me, so let them respond to Me, and believe in Me, so that they may be guided.’ (Al-Baqara: 186).

Those who are conscious of the Beloved’s constant presence turn to Him for support and help whenever this is needed (daily!); fully assured that He hears whenever they call. They acknowledge, with gratitude and praise, the innumerable gifts they receive from their Lord; whether or not these have come in answer to a supplication.

Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) acknowledges any good that a we do: ‘Anyone who does good of his own accord will be rewarded, for Allāh rewards good deeds, and knows every-thing.’ (Al-Baqara 158); and again: ‘If anyone does good, We shall increase it for him; Allāh is most forgiving and most appreciative.’ (Al-Shura 23).

It is a source of immeasurable wonder that the Beloved - Master of the Universe - should say to every person: ‘Remember Me; I will remember you.’ (Al-Baqara: 152).

Does this sound like a ‘static’ Being to you?

Al Masihi wrote: We’re not saying his human nature is his divine nature or his divine nature was his human nature,

I accept that without reservation.

To say that he is wholly a man, and not God would be fine. No contradiction there.

To say that he is wholly God, and not a man would also be fine. No contradiction there either.

But to say that he is both man and God at one and the same time (and this is what both you and the Church are claiming, after all) is very much a contradiction. As much a contradiction as saying that he can be both a man and a donkey; a man and a tree; a man and a rock, and so on.    

I fully understand why you can't see this. Aquinas, who argued that a human being cannot be both a man and a donkey, couldn't see it either. He was, of course, a Trinitarian. C.S. Lewis - who argued for the law of non-contradiction - was equally blind to this law when applied to the incarnation. He was also a Trinitarian. All Trinitarians believe as you do...I also once believed as you do. The real mystery is how on earth we did so, even while applying the law of non-contradiction to other things; to reality in general.   


    

Niblo wrote: Al Masihi wrote: We’re not saying his human nature is his divine nature or his divine nature was his human nature, I accept that without reservation. To say that he is wholly a man, and not God would be fine. No contradiction there. To say that he is wholly God, and not a man would also be fine. No contradiction there either. But to say that he is both man and God at one and the same time (and this is what both you and the Church are claiming, after all) is very much a contradiction. As much a contradiction as saying that he can be both a man and a donkey; a man and a tree; a man and a rock, and so on.     I fully understand why you can't see this. Aquinas, who argued that a human being cannot be both a man and a donkey, couldn't see it either. He was, of course, a Trinitarian. C.S. Lewis - who argued for the law of non-contradiction - was equally blind to this law when applied to the incarnation. He was also a Trinitarian. All Trinitarians believe as you do...I also once believed as you do. The real mystery is how on earth we did so, even while applying the law of non-contradiction to other things; to reality in general.

This answer presumes that God has some of the limitations of created things. It is an argument of the atheist.