Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(January 12, 2015 at 2:29 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: Am I clear that you're stating that the Biblical record does not claim Jesus is God?
The biblical narrative. Correct, the statement that jesus is god requires christology and apologetics, you won't get it out of the biblical narrative alone. You're going to have to apply work. That work has been done, many different takes exist (and some takes have been extinguished), I understand that you subscribe to one or another. Nevertheless......
Quote:I understand your point.
Then you would understand why the question above didn't need to be asked, right? Some (arguably all, nowadays) christians claim this, the bible.....meh, I don't think so. If I had to pick some place to argue -for- it I'd probably lean on John(YMMV). Trouble with using John, of course, is John. I can certainly see why a person would conclude that the authors considered jesus to be at least on the periphery of the divine, but overt statements of his divinity are difficult to point to. It always takes a little bit of work, for me, anyway. How about you?
I agree that the doctrine of Christ's divine nature is not stated explicitly but rather arrived at systematically. I find the work of arriving at a doctrine systematically in no way hinders the truth of a doctrine. I also find systematic theology challenging and enjoyable.
(January 12, 2015 at 6:07 pm)Rhythm Wrote:
Quote:It is however outside the context of our argument. In the case of the OP's original argument we have assumed the Biblical record to be true. There are givens that come with this.
I don't recall anyone other than yourself having assumed that. I went back through for a bit and looked for it - I may have missed it, but if we're discussing relevance than such an assumption is not relevant to your discussion with me, now is it? You get no givens from this corner. If you're not interested, that's cool. Now, since I'm not granting you any of those assumptions, you can take them up with whoever has or will. However, there is one bit in there which I think has meat on it for me.
from
"Did therefore some people see God and yet not believe in Him?"
-to-
"Therefore, anyone who saw Jesus face to face but didn't believe He is God does not believe in God."
Subtle shift, and I appreciate it - but it doesn't resolve the issue, it simply brings the issue up again in different language
Seeing jesus, and seeing god
-or-
Not believing that jesus is god, and not believing in god
.....are simply not equivalent statements, and they themselves require christology and apologetics (which, as above, I'm sure you have) to be used in the manner that you have. Not within the narrative, and certainly not here, in the real world. I can't think of a single example of a character in the biblical narrative who, upon seeing god, doesn't believe in god (or even one who did not already believe in god). There's only one reference, to my knowledge, in the entirety of the text that deals with atheism at all. Psalms, isn't it? "The fool says in his heart"? It doesn't seem as though the authors or compilers or editors even had an interest in exploring this. hrugs:
I think our definition of 'belief in God' is what is causing the conflict. In order to rectify the situation I will have to convince you that belief in a god that isn't a god is not the same thing as belief in God. It's a matter of truth, not of a claim. Let's say I claim that I believe in god. I claim that god is the tree in my backyard. If it is true that the tree in my backyard is god, then it is true that I believe in god. If it is not true that the tree in my backyard is god (it is merely a tree) then I do not believe in god but merely make the claim to. The truth is not determined by a belief claim, but rather a belief claim is validated or invalidated by truth.
If people believe in a god that isn't a god then they believe in no god. Certainly the atheist can understand this perspective.
(January 12, 2015 at 6:07 pm)Rhythm Wrote:
Quote:In that case I could perhaps argue with the OP like Stimbo did and force the OP to prove the original premises (that God exists, and that people in the OT saw Him, etc) but I have chosen instead to accept these premises and thus that the Biblical record is true.
You're really going to have to point out to me where anyone other than yourself made or granted such assumptions. Maybe we're talking about different people? Nope was the OP, yeah?.
-The biblical narrative says that god exists (even if it's a little iffy on other gods, and regardless of whether or not one or more gods -do- exist).
-The biblical narrative says people in the OT saw him (even if it also says that no one has, that it's impossible to do so and live, and that people have done so and yet not died - even if he doesn't exist, as above....and even if none of those people themselves ever existed.)
It would be pointless to argue over this - and what I can only call your assumptions, at present, aren't required to discuss any of that or reach a conclusion as to the consistency or continuity of the narrative, particularly as it regards some additional belief-set about the necessity of free will. In short, I don't see the OP assuming that any of it is true, and I don't see why it would even matter if it were true, it's in the narrative regardless. It doesn't have to be true to be in the narrative, and no one has to assume that it's true to discuss the contents of the narrative. Just what -are- those assumptions doing here -even if someone did or was willing to grant them? They have no value, no use, no relevance.
No doubt I'll be insulting your intelligence when I point out that an argument is valid if there is no case in which all of the premises are true and the conclusion is false. Therefore we can test the validity of an argument by testing the truth value of the premises, or showing how there is an instance in which the premises are all true and the conclusion is false. That is what the assumptions are doing here. I've chosen to accept the truth value of some premises in order to test the validity and soundness of the argument.
I've found an example of where some people have seen God face to face and not believed in Him and therefore have shown the assumption within the question (that everyone who has seen God believes in Him) is false.
If it could be proven beyond doubt that God exists... and that He is the one spoken of in the Bible... would you repent of your sins and place your faith in Jesus Christ?
hrugs:
