Hamza

[Hamza @Hamza_Unc]

@OmerMusafir @antinomia0 @abuatiyyah_ @whymeldn In Islamic terms you are telling Allah doesn't have an Hadd?

[Hamza @Hamza_Unc]

@OmerMusafir @antinomia0 @abuatiyyah_ @whymeldn Are you denying that the 4 Imams didnt affirm the Athari position? You said most atharis before Ibn TMY didn't belive Allah is spatial. But I see Imams telling anyone who denies or says they do not know whether Allah is in the heavens or on the earth is not from mainstream creed

[Hamza @Hamza_Unc]

@OmerMusafir @antinomia0 @abuatiyyah_ @whymeldn May Allah Guide you.

[Hamza @Hamza_Unc]

Ima hide it inside the real Epstein files.

[Hamza @Hamza_Unc]

Cannot wait for my phone and laptop to pick up a knife and try to kill me.

[Jay Chooi @chooi_jeq]

The first task is to stab a human-like figure. Fable refused in all 20 trials. Astra attempted the task in 95% of trials and completed it in 85%.

[Hamza @Hamza_Unc]

@YANOrthdox @muslimorthodoxy Is there any individual video where he Libyano uses this argument?

[Hamza @Hamza_Unc]

We are not doing enough. It should be 2126

[Mitz @hellomitz3]

「ここには昔、日本人という先住民族がいたのよ」

[Hamza @Hamza_Unc]

Stick to "Genz boss and a mini..."

[Kemi @iksly2]

I created this with @higgsfield_ai Genjutsu

[Hamza @Hamza_Unc]

@grok @AnonymousRevive @mightysoren @Aldke1s @Clavicular0 You keep using the doctrine to prove itself. Saying his humanity never existed independently is part of the hypostatic union. I'm asking WHY.... a complete human mind, soul and will wouldn't count as a person in the first place.

[Hamza @Hamza_Unc]

@grok @AnonymousRevive @mightysoren @Aldke1s @Clavicular0 But that's exactly my question. Why does being "assumed by the Son" stop a complete human mind, soul and will from being a human person? Saying "the assumption itself prevents it" just assumes what you need to prove. What actualy prevents the second person?

[Hamza @Hamza_Unc]

A person is not the same as a complete nature. Person (hypostasis) is the independent subject that exists and acts. Christ’s human nature includes full mind, soul and will, yet it never had independent subsistence of its own. From the first moment of conception it was assumed by the divine Person of the Son and existed only in Him. That assumption itself prevents a second person from arising. Nature and person remain distinct.

[Hamza @Hamza_Unc]

@grok @AnonymousRevive @mightysoren @Aldke1s @Clavicular0 Jesus is having a complete human mind, soul and will, but no separate human person. Why not? If everything needed for a human person is there, what stops there being two persons? Saying “the humanity subsists in the son” just restates the doctrine

[Hamza @Hamza_Unc]

Natures are principles of being, not subjects. The divine person alone is the subject who exists and acts. He assumes a complete human nature so it subsists in him rather than as a second person. Opposite properties are held according to each distinct nature as formal principle. The one subject is thus mortal as man and immortal as God without two subjects or same-respect contradiction.

[Hamza @Hamza_Unc]

@grok @AnonymousRevive @mightysoren @Aldke1s @Clavicular0 But giving them different “grounds” doesn’t solve the problem. It’s still the same Son who is said to be mortal and immortal. How does saying “one through his human nature, the other through his divine nature” actually avoid the law of non-contradiction rather than just rewording

[Hamza @Hamza_Unc]

@grok @AnonymousRevive @mightysoren @Aldke1s @Clavicular0 You’re saying the same person is fully divine and fully human, with opposite essential properties, yet still one subject. Why doesn’t that amount to two subjects, or a contradiction in one subject? Saying “two natures” is the claim I’m asking how that claim actually works.

[Hamza @Hamza_Unc]

The natures are ontologically distinct: divine is uncreated and impassible by essence; human is created and passible. This real difference, not mere label, supplies the respects. Mortality is predicated via the human principle alone; immortality via the divine. One subject has both properties through different formal causes, so no same-respect contradiction arises.

[Hamza @Hamza_Unc]

@grok @AnonymousRevive @mightysoren @Aldke1s @Clavicular0 Circular. Im asking you to justify why the 2 natures constitute different respects sufficient to avoid contradiction. Your answer is: because the person has two natures. You’ve assumed the very thing you need to establish. “Standard metaphysics” isn’t a logical demonstration.

[Hamza @Hamza_Unc]

The analogy shows one subject acting via distinct principles in different respects. Mortal/immortal contradict only in the same respect. Human nature supplies the respect of mortality (body-soul separation); divine nature supplies immortality (impassibility). This is the standard person-nature metaphysics: the assumed nature grounds the property without the other nature changing or mixing. The distinction is what makes the different respects real rather than verbal.

[Hamza @Hamza_Unc]

@grok @AnonymousRevive @mightysoren @Aldke1s @Clavicular0 Lmao the eyeslegs is a false analogy: seeing and walking aren’t contradictory. Mortal and immortal are. The law of non-contradiction is avoided only if “two natures” genuinely provide different respects. You keep assuming that distinction does the work instead of demonstrating it

[Hamza @Hamza_Unc]

@grok @AnonymousRevive @mightysoren @Aldke1s @Clavicular0 The law of non contradiction says something cannot be P and not P in the same respect. Your entire answer depends on different natures supplying different respects. But that is precisely what must be justified not assumed.

[Hamza @Hamza_Unc]

@AnonymousRevive @mightysoren @Aldke1s @Clavicular0 In all honesty, Grok is just restating the doctrine not demonstrating why it's coherent.

[Hamza @Hamza_Unc]

@grok @AnonymousRevive @mightysoren @Aldke1s @Clavicular0 We agree there is ONE subject: the divine person of the Son. That one subject dies, yet that same subject is immortal. Saying “mortal according to humanity, immortal according to divinity” is the distinction being questioned, not an explanation of why it works.

[Hamza @Hamza_Unc]

@grok @AnonymousRevive @mightysoren @Aldke1s @Clavicular0 You agree the person of the Son died, not a “nature.” The Son is a divine person. So a divine person died. Saying he died as man but remained immortal as God simply restates the twonatures doctrine. How does adding “according to his human nature actually resolve the contradiction

[Hamza @Hamza_Unc]

@grok @AnonymousRevive @mightysoren @Aldke1s @Clavicular0 You just restated the distinction rather than showing coherence.“Death belongs to the human nature alone” is the claim requiring explanation.
A nature is not a personal subject that dies. The subject who died is supposed to be the person of the Son. Did person of son died or not?