Why did Jesus pray?

Pope Benedict argues that it was to commune with God in the best way he could while he was incarnated as a human. He is God Himself, after all, but there are two other persons of the Trinity which are also God. When Jesus was a man, there was a kind of kink in their normal communication, which Jesus made up for by praying.

>>9717142
The Bible is a collection of different stories that don't fit together perfectly.

>>9717142
The way Jesus talks about prayer implies that it's a lot more than just telephoning God.

If Jesus was alive today he would be posting on reddit

>>9717142
He's still obedient to God the Father and as sinless man would need to pray in order to be sinless.

>>9717193
This is interesting, can you expand?

Also, is Jesus a man while in heaven with the Father?

>>9717142
He was praying for reddit gold

>>9717176
>implying the persons are separate
HERESY

>>9717303
DESU it seems pretty clear to me that during the incarnation and Pentecost Christ and the Ghost willingly became subordinate to the Father for a time

Because that's what the author made him do. Same as any novel.

>>9717176
>a kind of kink in their normal communication, which Jesus made up for by praying.

Utter, utter nonsense.

Why doen anybody pray? Why do people talk to themselves?

>>9717142

Jesus was the example of the ideal man, which means he was there to be emulated by the many, even if only understood by the few; therefore, he prayed.

It's pretty fucking obvious when you read the Bible...

>>9717340

Meditation and thought clarification.

It's essentially an oppourtunity to stop and think deeply.

Like an oldschool version of cognitive behavioural therapy, conducted by oneself.

>>9717250
kek

>>9717142
He was still human.

>>9718475
all too human

>>9718482

Ayyy, this guy!

>>9717303
>implying the persons are the same
ALSO HERESY

File: hellraiser.jpg (53KB, 717x434px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 717x434px

>>9717142
Jesus wept.

Jesus is god in the form of a human being, not god himself. Jesus Christ!

what the fuck else should have done

>>9718515
>Jesus is god in the form of a human being, not god himself
even as an analytic proposition this is retarded as fuck
>theists in charge of ontology

Have you guys looked into the conspiracy theory that Julius Caesar created Jesus?

>>9718531
jesus is half god half human, but not god himself

deal with it

>>9718609
that's not even close to true. Christ had one nature, both divine and human. Nestorians begone!

>>9718609
>jesus is not god
it's so easy to get you cucks to contradict the trinity it's not even satisfying

>>9718652
Monophysites out! Christ had an entirely divine nature AND an entirely human nature

>>9718673
>human nature implying sin
>divine nature implying maximally good
listening to you guys explain the trinity is like watching an abstract movie, you don't know which scenes are real and what's a flashback or a dream, which statements are meant to be taken literally or in the abstract, at first you think maybe it's just 2deep4u but then you realize the director has no idea either and is just hoping to seem deep enough to win critical acclaim

In order to understand the trinity, you have to understand three key words: being, person, ans nature.

A being is an existing entity, or "that something is"; a person is a rational individual or "who someone is"; and nature refers to "what something is." For example, you exist so you are a kind of being (in this case, a pleb). You are also a person who has a human nature, that is, you have the capacity to act in distinctly human ways. So you are a being who is one person and possesses one human nature.

God is one being that exists as three persons who each fully possess the divine nature. These persons can talk to each other but it's certainly not necessary so I think a lot of it is Jesus setting an example.

>>9717142
Because he was afraid.

>>9718769
Soul, mind and body?

>>9718808

I guess you could say that. The soul, mind, and body are all parts of a single being.

>>9718769
>God is one being that exists as three persons who each fully possess the divine nature.
nope still just as retard as every other way you phrase it
one being contradicts three persons (1 is not 3 unless god has a split personality disorder)
three persons contradicts divine nature (human nature incompatible with divine nature)

have some perspective m8, it should be incredibly easy to explain such concepts. we're not talking about convincing someone to believe in your theology, you just have to explain the internal logic. the pokemon author can explain pokemon logic to children, even if they don't believe it's real at least they can suspend their disbelief. if you can't explain the internal "game system" to someone willing to entertain the idea despite thousands of years of theologians reading and writing, if you can't even half explain it by way of analogy, if you can't even reach a consensus with other christians, you really have no place to be talking down to anyone, the ball is 100% at your court for this one, no excuses or 2deep4u please.

>>9718817
>>9718808

That does sound very close to modalism though. So long as you don't take the language of "parts" too literally.

So how does the " father why have you forsaken me?" fit in all of this trinity deal.

>>9718833

He's quoting a Psalm.

>>9718835
was jesus the first memer

>>9718820

Can you explain to me how one being contradicts three persons or how three persons contradicts one nature? It's not a contradiction just because you declare it. You have to explain your reasoning.

I don't know what you're talking about in regards to the "internal logic" of the trinity. I merely defined some terms so people can understand what the trinity means. This is not me talking down to anyone and it doesn't follow that because Christians disagree with each other that the truth doesn't exist or that we shouldn't discuss it. It also doesn't follow that because a concept or philosophy is complex then it must be inaccurate. You're essentially saying that because nobody can distill 2000 years of theology into a 4chan comment so people like you can understand it, then obviously it's wrong, "checkmate theists."

>>9718835
>Psalm
Which one and for what purpose?

>>9718903

I don't know. If only we had access to some sort of tool that could readily bring up such information in great detail.

>>9718880
one being/entity contradicts three persons because being implies identity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity) but person also implies identity, "who someone is" is synonymous with "what someone is" one thing must be identical to itself, it can't have three natures/identities (unless god is three things/beings/entities which would be polytheism). you can try to solve this so that "three persons" doesn't logically necessitate three entities but that's just a semantics game.
you then used the word individual(root word indivisible) to describe what personhood means i don't even know what kind of meme to reply with

>It also doesn't follow that because a concept or philosophy is complex then it must be inaccurate. You're essentially saying that because nobody can distill 2000 years of theology into a 4chan comment so people like you can understand it
the fruits (if not purpose) of philosophy is to a large degree simplification and clarification. if you disagree with the aforementioned you're a pseud who prefers style over substance. i'm not blaming you personally for not coming up with the perfect 10/10 elegant explanation on the spot, i'm blaming the collective brainpower of 2000 years worth of theologians for failing to produce a good explanation. i don't have any high aspirations of getting you to admit that the concept is incoherent, i just want people like you to admit that you don't understand the trinity instead of feeding me this facade of vagueness as if to trick me that you really understand it but can't explain it well

You've ignored the definitions I provided for being and person without any justification and you replaced them with the unrelated Wikipedia definitions. You're impossible, have a good day.

>>9717250
LMAO
M
A
O

>>9718990
i used your definitions
who is synonymous to what unless you want to explain why

>>9718990
you might also want to check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction to get an understanding of why trying to define your terms into automatic victory is a weak meme. simply using synonyms for the word "nature" doesn't adequately address how one entity can have more than one nature. yeah yeah, my dog doesn't have 5 natures, he just has 1 personality, 1 character, 1 temperament, 1 disposition, and 1 mentality. doesn't work that way lad