Faith in Christ is Completely Logical

[Dr. Strange]

No, if you want to be taken seriously and not as just another waste of time and bandwidth you need to get over the idea that bible verses are evidence of anything except what it says in the bible. The use of bible verses to prove that other bible verses are true is bad case of circular reasoning and thus a logical fallacy. This is the way it works:

The usual Christian excuse that I've seen is to try and slice the bible up into separate piece and make the claim that one piece supports the other and vice versa (e.g., Matthew use to prove Genesis (Matthew 19:3–6, cf. Genesis 1:27, Genesis 2:24); Paul used to prove Luke (1 Timothy 5:18, cf. Luke 10:7); Peter used to prove Paul (2 Peter 3:15–16)).

There is a problem with this approach, the Old Testament was generally available when the New Testament was written, the contents of the NT fit the contents of the OT. Any sequential set of writings on similar topics would suffer from similar problems. In science it's called "references," and experiments provide the new data required to destroy the problem circularity. In philosophy and mathematics where experiments are not performed, "equivalent statements" are proved from the same set of axioms which breaks the circle.

If someone is trying to prove a section of the Bible with a different section of the Bible and does not have evidence outside the Bible, all that they have done is establish that the biblical sections are equivalent under the same set of axioms. It does not matter what the actual axioms are. The validity of the axioms must still be validated independently to go beyond simply establishing equivalence.

(with thanks to rationlwiki.com)

I have to agree with what you just said. With that let me say that using the OT to verify the NT does not mean that the Bible is the Word of God. Verification only verifies what the NT was meant to say. A kind of a dictionary, encyclopedia. So, what is the Word of God? It is not necessary to clarify at this point what the Word of God is. What is found in these writings is a clarification about what has ultimately become the Christian faith.

It would do both, Atheists and Christians, well to understand correctly what the Bible really does teach. All to often neither really understand the Bible and the proof of God or, disproof becomes circular.

You made your point clear and I agree. Now let all those reading understand that the question needs to be reformulated.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Then stop telling other guests it's yours.

Now now children, play nicely... haha. What about explaining where everything comes from, which is a question been asked, and somehow forgotten.

 

[Sapiens]

... I think

Are you sure? Seems a debatable claim to me. Some evidence might be helpful.

 

[Storm]

I live in another house as well, which is located here in New Jersey. It is a great deal dissimilar to this house, for it is constructed of wood and cement. This other house that I'm referring to belongs to me. It is my house.

Interesting enough, there are three other people who live in my house, and they consider it to be their house as well. And indeed, they are correct. This is not only my house, but it is also my wife's house. This house also belongs to my children. It is their house as well.

If I lived in an apartment, and even if I did not own the apartment, I could certainly tell people that this is my apartment. They might ask for some clarification as to whether or not I own this apartment, but the onus of discovering such greater clarity is on them, to ask?

Which is why I pointed out that you don't live here. That you are a guest. Guest means it's not yours. You are not a resident. You are at best a couch surfer. Of course, when a guest tries to claim ownership, that's just squatting.

Perhaps you should try a comparison that you actually understand.

 

[Storm]

Are you sure? Seems a debatable claim to me. Some evidence might be helpful.

I really hope you saw my apology.

 

[Dr. Strange]

Only if you play with the word 'nothing'. If it is nothing in the fullest sense of the wrod, it can't. Thus there has to be something ( in its broadest meaning)

Science disagrees with you.

 

[Storm]

Now now children, play nicely... haha. What about explaining where everything comes from, which is a question been asked, and somehow forgotten.

I saw your posts. This is far more productive.

 

[Dr. Strange]

For chaos to assemble into something that has order is truly remarkable, in anybodies language.

God has many aspects, even though he is One.

And your point is concerning God's aspects? What aspects? Explain what you mean by aspects.

 

[Dr. Strange]

We know plenty about God... he reveals it to us through his creation, even without spiritual discernment one can see that. We also know his son, and anyone who knows the son knows the Father.

I'm glad that you articulate exactly what I just said about the negative aspects man observes. Now if you can only acknowledge your faith beyond what your mind blocks, you'd begin to see the difference.

 

[Sonofason]

No one is saying they are not allowed here, nor that they are not welcome. It is just that is our subject, not theirs, therefore our house and not theirs.

I personally am not saying that this is not their house. I am saying this is my house. The fact that this is my house does not exclude this house from being an atheist's house or your house. If an atheist should choose to dwell here, as with any other person that is permitted to take part in this forum, it is their house as well.

Nevertheless, despite the fact that this house is a house for many, it still remains my house, until I'm either evicted or chose to leave.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Ok, I fully get that your faith assures you that there is God and that Jesus is God's Son.

My faith does not assure me of anything. I know there is a God because of the inner witness of God. That is fact and gnosis, gnosis as in knowledge, knowledge of him, knowledge of his son. Faith means conviction, as in the conviction of the person and is outward... it shows the change of the person. We do not believe in something we don't know, which is impossible, we believe in something we know.

I get it when you say that anyone that knows the son knows the Father.

Do you? It is perhaps bigger than you think

To believe in God is through faith.

See above

No belief can transcend that faith. Although faith and Grace are two sides of a coin they are totally different. What you call Grace has always been there from mankind's beginning. Jesus just made Grace evident and Christianity capitalized on Grace.

Gnosis, signifying a spiritual knowledge, a sense of mystical enlightenment or insight. Google

see above

I've explored this from the NAB1970 footnotes already. So, here it is again.

John 1: 14; The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we have seen his glory: the glory of an only Son coming from the Father, filled with enduring love.

ff:
p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; }
Ex.; John 1; In the beginning was the Word; the Word was in God's presence, and the Word was God. NAB1970.
ff: "1, 1-18: . . . Commentators are divided on whether the initial reference to the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ is in 1,9 or 1,14." Ibid.
ff: "1, 9: The earlier versions make every man (instead of the light) the subject of coming into the world." Ibid.
ff: "1, 14: Made his dwelling: literally, "set up his tent, or tabernacle." In the Exodus the tabernacle or tent of meeting was the site of God's dwelling among men (Ex 25, 8f); now that site is the Word-made-flesh. Glory: the glory of God (the visible manifestation of his majesty in power), which once filled the tabernacle (Ex 40, 34) and the temple (1 Kgs 8, 10f.27), is now centered in Jesus. Filled with enduring love: It is not clear whether filled modifies glory or Word or only Son. The two words love and enduring (often translated "grace and truth") represent two Old Testament terms used to describe the dealings of the God of the covenant with Israel (Ex 34, 6); love signifying God's love in choosing Israel and his steadfast expression of that love in the covenant; enduring signifying his faithfulness to his covenant promises. Jesus is a new manifestation of God's covenant, enduring love, replacing the Old; cf v 16."

p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; }
John 1: 14:

God manifested in Jesus or that Jesus is the manifestation of God. Jesus is a new manifestation of God's covenant, "enduring love."


1 Timothy 3:16; "Wonderful, indeed, is the mystery of our faith, as we say in professing it: "He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the spirit; Seen by the angels; preached among the Gentiles, Believed in throughout the world, taken up into glory.""


Why then do believers find no fault in the Bible. Take 1 Timothy 3:16 and I apply your insistence on Jesus' divinity when I can interpret 3:16 to say: 1) "Mystery," "designates the secret that was hidden in divine wisdom during previous centuries and only revealed in Messianic times, i.e., that the redemption of all men is accomplished by Christ and is attained through union with Christ." JBC[57:21:9]. 2) "Flesh," "meaning human nature." 3) "Vindicated," [Justified] "meaning just," "[not] the usual Pauline meaning of purified from sin,"JBC[57:21:9]. 4) "Spirit," "The justice and divinity of Christ were manifested in a special way through the operation of the Holy Spirit in the glorious resurrection of Christ." JBC[57:22:16].


1 Timothy 3: 16: “3,14ff: . . . The care he must exercise over this community is required by the profound nature of Christianity. It centers in Christ, preexistent but appearing in human flesh; the goodness of his mortal existence was verified by the Holy Spirit; the mystery of his Person was revealed to the angels, announced to the Gentiles, and accepted by them in faith. He himself was returned (through his resurrection and ascension) to the divine glory that is properly his (v 16). . . . “


The manifestations of God are represented by the prophets. Jesus represented a manifestation of God, as a prophet, in the "flesh," as the "mystery," justified by the Spirit (God's "hidden divine wisdom") "taken up into glory" ("the visible manifestation" NAB1970, John 1: 14.)


Jesus, not Jesus the Christ but, Jesus as the Christ (Tillich), a manifestation of God.


"The many different meanings of the term "Word" [six] are all united in one meaning, namely, "God manifest"--manifest in himself, in creation, in the history of revelation, in the final revelation, in the Bible, in the words of the church and her members. "God manifest"--the mystery of the divine abyss expressing itself through the divine Logos--this is the meaning of the symbol, the "Word of God." Systematic Theology, Paul Tillich, Vol. I, p. 159.

Christianity makes Jesus divine but in reality what Jesus manifested was the "Word of God." The manifestation is Jesus as the Christ.

I am not sure what your point is to all this. If Yahshuah divine? Yes. But he was a man when he walked the earth. That does not mean that his inner Self, which is identified with him, is not God. Even we can have the spirit of God with us. Though in us is not necessarily seen as in the physical body, though in some ways it will be.

There is no fault in the Bible as the Bible is true to its own reality. By that I mean there is more than one reality, so each version, as each God (reflective) is true to its own Self. The Self is reflective. I do not know what else to say as I do not see what it is you are asking for all those comments.

What is your position on God?
Where does everything come from?
If you don't believe, I assume you did before.

 

[Sonofason]

No, if you want to be taken seriously and not as just another waste of time and bandwidth you need to get over the idea that bible verses are evidence of anything except what it says in the bible. The use of bible verses to prove that other bible verses are true is bad case of circular reasoning and thus a logical fallacy. This is the way it works:

The usual Christian excuse that I've seen is to try and slice the bible up into separate piece and make the claim that one piece supports the other and vice versa (e.g., Matthew use to prove Genesis (Matthew 19:3–6, cf. Genesis 1:27, Genesis 2:24); Paul used to prove Luke (1 Timothy 5:18, cf. Luke 10:7); Peter used to prove Paul (2 Peter 3:15–16)).

There is a problem with this approach, the Old Testament was generally available when the New Testament was written, the contents of the NT fit the contents of the OT. Any sequential set of writings on similar topics would suffer from similar problems. In science it's called "references," and experiments provide the new data required to destroy the problem circularity. In philosophy and mathematics where experiments are not performed, "equivalent statements" are proved from the same set of axioms which breaks the circle.

If someone is trying to prove a section of the Bible with a different section of the Bible and does not have evidence outside the Bible, all that they have done is establish that the biblical sections are equivalent under the same set of axioms. It does not matter what the actual axioms are. The validity of the axioms must still be validated independently to go beyond simply establishing equivalence.

(with thanks to rationlwiki.com)

I wonder what we would know if all documentations and personal testimonies were tossed out the window. In a court of law, eye witness testimony is evidence. If it were to be verifiable evidence that would make the evidence of eye witness testimony more powerful and believable. But eye witness testimony, even if unverifiable, is evidence. It just isn't strong evidence.

 

[Robert.Evans]

If we have quite finished gentlemen talking about the property market,
I would like someone who is not a theist to say where everything comes from. Any takers? Why is it so difficult? Surely you have an answer, you must do considering you so confidently affirm your own ideas.... so they must surely lead somewhere... don't they?

 

[Sonofason]

No. It's Rex's house. Stop saying it's yours.


No, actually, I don't think it's allegory. I think it's something entirely different, which frankly, I don't think you would understand.

That said, I've been playing along with your sad little metaphor (not an allegory) this whole time.


Yes, you paid lip service to mod authority. That makes it no less presumptuous to tell people they're welcome to stay in a community you insist is yours, let alone someone who's been a member seven times as long as you.


The human language? Funny, I didn't think there was one language for humans. What sort of creatures speak the other languages?

Anyway, you really don't have a leg to stand on when you can't even wrap your brain around what it means to say "this is mine," when in fact, it belongs to someone else entirely.

Perhaps we can continue this when you cool down somewhat. Perhaps you can get Rex's opinion on all this. I'm sorry that what I say seems so offensive to you. But I assure you it is more a personal problem than it is a problem with me, or anything I've said.

 

[Sonofason]

Which is why I pointed out that you don't live here. That you are a guest. Guest means it's not yours. You are not a resident. You are at best a couch surfer. Of course, when a guest tries to claim ownership, that's just squatting.

Perhaps you should try a comparison that you actually understand.

Instead, I will discontinue argument on this matter as it has become a vile distraction from the OP.

 

[Storm]

Perhaps we can continue this when you cool down somewhat. Perhaps you can get Rex's opinion on all this. I'm sorry that what I say seems so offensive to you. But I assure you it is more a personal problem than it is a problem with me, or anything I've said.

I'm perfectly calm, you're just wrong. And whether or not my problem is with what you're saying is ALSO not your call.

Self-serving, thoroughly ignorant "assurances" of what I really think only serve to confirm my assessment.

 

[Sapiens]

We know plenty about God... he reveals it to us through his creation, even without spiritual discernment one can see that. We also know his son, and anyone who knows the son knows the Father.

The universe is a basically orderly system. There are those who see the order in and of itself as big enough and complex enough to be sentient and are moved to what I consider a cop-out, that is, calling that order "God."

While I find that completely unnecessary and I don't think that our currently incomplete understanding of the order of the universe begins to argue for a level of complexity approaching sentience, I have no big beef with those who hold that view beyond pointing out that argument from ignorance that is at it's base.

What I do have trouble with are those who believe in "God" and use that belief in God to support claims like "Faith in Christ is completely Logical." Ignoring, for the moment, the definitional contradictory nature of faith and logic that renders the premise an oxymoron, if is important to recognize that the believers have their basic construct backwards.

They advocate the premise that their God is the creator of the order that is at the base of the universe yet the miss the fact that most of the "evidence" that they would present from their Bible is chaotic in nature rather than orderly. Miracles are exceptions to the natural order, they are unpredictable and thus chaotic. Most of the Bible deals with exceptions to the natural order, such chaotic events ranging from the trivial (so to speak, like the transmutation of Lot's wife) to the grandiose (stopping the sun in the sky) from the personal (the release of Peter from prison) to the all encompassing (the Great Flood), God is almost always presented as the harbinger of chaos, yet God is supposed to be the giver and champion of order.

 

[Sapiens]

I wonder what we would know if all documentations and personal testimonies were tossed out the window. In a court of law, eye witness testimony is evidence. If it were to be verifiable evidence that would make the evidence of eye witness testimony more powerful and believable. But eye witness testimony, even if unverifiable, is evidence. It just isn't strong evidence.

In science eyewitness testimony is meaningless, all that counts is that which is verifiable. Recently, eyewitness testimony in court has been called into serious question; and shown, in a verifiable fashion, to be quite undependable.

 

[Sapiens]

My faith does not assure me of anything. I know there is a God because of the inner witness of God. That is fact and gnosis, gnosis as in knowledge, knowledge of him, knowledge of his son. Faith means conviction, as in the conviction of the person and is outward... it shows the change of the person. We do not believe in something we don't know, which is impossible, we believe in something we know.

No that is naught but circular reasoning compounding the area of argument from ignorance. If that is gnosis, you've a whole lot of work to do to separate the wishful foolishness from reality before you can advance a logical case.

 

[Storm]

In science eyewitness testimony is meaningless, all that counts is that which is verifiable. Recently, eyewitness testimony in court has been called into serious question; and shown, in a verifiable fashion, to be quite undependable.

Of course.

Religion isn't science, though (not that I hold with secondhand revelation). Science isn't criminal law. Criminal law isn't music. Music isn't history.

See, this is where people lose me. These are all wholly separate fields with completely different methods and standards, as is required by their radically different goals.