Many of this week's posts have to do with the question of Jesus's alleged divinity, in connection with the concept of the virgin birth and whether it holds water in light of the historical details Crossan points out. So here is another question in that vein -- though it also runs back to Hinduism a bit: if we assume that God, who/whatever God is, is entirely beyond human comprehension (as any omnipotent eternal being rightly should be), then what does it mean to be divine?
The most loose definition that suits all situations seems to be "Close to the nature of God."
ReplyDeleteWhile we may understand that God is an inherently incomprehensible being, we can comprehend there are distinguishable attributes God possesses, such as wisdom, but on an infinite scale. Of course, wisdom is a comprehensible subject but infinite wisdom is totally beyond our understanding.
Going off of that, if divinity is incomprehensible, then there is a natural disconnect between what humans perceive as divine and what the actual divine being is. This accounts for some of the discords in the Bible and why it can be most literally seen as fiction. Of course, by definition, no one can really know what a divine being's true intention is.
ReplyDeleteIt might be that your question is part of the answer: One part of being divine does seem to require being beyond what most people are capable of understanding (or at least understanding in full). Part of the reason people seem to look towards the divine (or science) is because we don't know how the universe really works, so we go looking for things that might know, even if we can't fully understand what they are saying.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure humans know what it means to be divine, simply because it (by definition) is not something that the human mind can understand. Words like perfect, in my opinion, fit in this category. Much like perfection, divinity could be a concept that we never attain, yet constantly strive to embody or understand.
ReplyDelete