Jesus says, to take a few stark examples
Luke 18:19 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”
I think we’ve already seen how this verse went. As to the others, Christ has a dual nature. He is 100% man and 100% God. You seem to forget Christ is man one moment, then forget Christ is God the other depending on the convenience of the amnesia. Any of these verses can be easily answered by remembering he is both. You don’t have to believe that Blü, but it's very clear what scripture and the doctrine state.
And not once, not anywhere, does Jesus say, "I am God" ─
He does as
@Spartan has shown you
time and time again, but there’s no getting through to you guys, is there? If the Jews had been able to stone Jesus for blasphemy, you would still not believe Jesus is God. Instead, you would simply forget that he was also man, and ask “Why did he die if he was God?”!
There's no getting through to you guys, is there. It's GOT to say there's a Trinity, even if the Trinity idea didn't exist back then, even if it's not only an incoherent doctrine but admittedly so, even if it leaves Jesus saying 'Me, me, why have I forsaken me?' and being his own father, and so on.
Jesus is praying to the Father, not himself. Why do you present arguments we do not believe as if we do? Your argument is properly presented to a Modalist, not a Trinitarian.
If only you were there to explain that to the Jews!
No doubt the rocks they picked up to stone Jesus for blasphemy would have been dropped immediately.
Ah, God is easily frightened! How could I fail to see that!
Frightened? What bible are you reading from?? Can you cite the verse or are you once again creating your own biblical narrative?
Now if something can't be known by reason, or shown to be correct by reason once it's known, what would be an appropriate name for that something? Beyond a doubt, 'an unreasonable thing'. 'A nonsense' would fit too. So would 'an incoherent thing'.
This entire
paragraph you've presented above is an unreasonable, nonsense or "incoherent thing".
Things "beyond our reason" are not by necessity unreasonable. I can talk to a squirrel, explain my tax return to him, show him my tax return, even stuff the Return down his home in the tree,
and the squirrel is not going to understand my tax return.
My tax return is simply
unreasonable to the squirrel, even
after my revelation, because it’s beyond the grasp of “squirrel reasoning”. It does not make my tax return unreasonable in and of itself. Likewise there are things of God that are beyond “human reasoning”. He has a certain reasoning, we have a certain reasoning, and the squirrel has a certain reasoning.
What do you find so difficult about this??
What scripture is that, given that the Trinity is nowhere mentioned in the NT and Jesus expressly and repeatedly denies he's God?
Scripture? As in single scripture? You mean scripture
(s) as in plural don’t you? You must have missed the
160 verses we gave you before. Here ‘s a
link to them again.
Give me just one place in the NT where Jesus says, "I am God". I've given you five above where Jesus says "I am not God". (Don't give quotes like, "I am" or "I am Alpha and Omega" or "I am Mr Ed the Talking Horse" ─ We're looking for where Jesus says, "I am God".
You are too funny Blü! I can see the conversation now:
You would not have believed Moses even though the Jews did, and you certainly do not believe Jesus even though the Jews did, at least in this particular instance. You are a
skeptic Blu. It doesn’t
really matter what Moses says, Jesus says, or scripture says
because you don’t believe scripture at all.
So when God says I AM, and Moses says I AM sent me, and Jesus says I AM there are no dots or connections to make, no exegesis, no hermeneutics, but simply random verses to be taken in isolation so that another incongruous argument to be made.
It'd be very difficult, since they have no clear idea what God is, and even less if we require God to be real, to have objective existence. Not that I do, but then that's not my problem.
But it is the problem nevertheless. If you don’t believe scripture then you’re not going to believe any scripture I cite you. Why ask for things you're going to dismiss as rubbish anyways?
My Theory of Everything starts with three assumptions. I have to assume them, since they have in common that they can't be demonstrated to be correct without the prior assumption that they are correct.
Here’s what you've just told us: Blu has a theory that has 3 assumptions . These 3 assumptions have a common theme, but none of them can be demonstrated to be correct UNLESS we presume they were correct to begin with.
That looks suspiciously like a an argument for circular logic.
But let's test this hypothesis anyways...wait...you just stated they
can't be demonstrated to be correct without the prior assumption they are correct" which of course eliminates any unbiased testing of your hypothesis altogether.
Let's continue
- That a world exists external to the self;
- That our senses are capable of informing us of that world.
- That reason is a valid tool.
Well now, this is interesting! Let's take it one step at a time, shall we?
1.
That a world exists external to the self;
What is “self”? Do you mean soul? How did you objectively test for it?
2.
That our senses are capable of informing us of that world.
Your conception of the world appears to be one that is SUBJECT to our senses. There is nothing, anywhere that suggests this universe, or any other universe, is subject to human senses or testing. The whole idea is a vanity. In classic Blü parlance, it’s “a nonsense”.
3. That reason is a valid tool.
What do you mean by “reason”? Are you referring to observation and/or logic as a tool? Is your assumption based on a premise that all things have an inherent logic? If so how do you explain humans? That all things are observable? Then tell us about our future!
It seems to me that by posting here you demonstrate that you agree with the first two.
Here's what I think about the first two:
A. I’m just as confused about what you mean by “self” as you appear to be when I talk about “spirit”.
B. I believe , like you, that our senses
can correctly inform us about our world but there are limits. I think it a mistake to believe we are ever
fully informed about our world. In our fallen state our senses are simply not capable of acknowledging all that goes around us. Ditto for our sense of self. So it’s not just the external world we do not see in its entirety, but our own internal world as well.
If you disagree with the third, now would be a good time to say so.
C. You would have to go into a bit more detail as to what you mean by “reason”. As humans, we give “reasons” for many things not all of which are
reasonable.
The rest is a matter of exploring, describing and seeking to explain what exists in the world external to the self ─ objective reality, nature, the realm of the physical sciences.
All of which is subject to
bias. You didn’t explain how we test or eliminate it.
And the way to do this is by reasoned enquiry. With the physical sciences this takes the form of scientific method.
Much like a squirrel’s ability to make inquiry into its universe is
limited by the capacity of its brain our ability for inquiry is
likewise limited. Why this is not immediately obvious to everyone is beyond me, but I believe there's a large element of vanity involved.
This also gives rise to our concept of truth. A statement is true to the extent that it conforms with / corresponds to / accurately describes objective reality. Since science proceeds by empiricism and induction, none of its conclusions is ever absolute, simply the best opinion for the time being. There are no absolutes outside this sentence.
Science is subject to human bias and interpretation. It is limited by our perceptions…our ability to visualize, see, hear, smell, taste, touch or understand. I see nothing in “objective reality” that tells us this reality is subject to human perception. IMO, it’s simply a vain indulgence.
You, by contrast, have no definition of God appropriate to a real god, one sufficient to allow us to tell whether any real candidate is God or not.
It sounds like you’re telling me I don’t have a definition for God you're not prepared to disagree with. Ain’t that the truth!!
You don't even have a definition of 'godness', the real quality a real god has and nothing else does.
Sure I do. Look at Job 38:4-7. If anything you "objectively" test can raise its hand when asked this question, then that raised hand is God.
If you did, I could test this keyboard I'm using and determine whether it's God or not; but you don't, so I'll never know.
I have a keyboard too, Blü.
When science comes up with a device that, notwithstanding our own bias and limitations, can tell us "what is" and "what is not", please let me know.
Meanwhile the only place that God is known to exist is as a concept, a thing imagined that has no objective counterpart, in individual brains.
Perhaps in
your brain Blü, but not in
mine. I'm sure
when you finish constructing your device it can tell us which brain's reality is "objectively" real.
But if that's wrong, please supply me with those definitions. It might alter my relationship with this keyboard forever.
I think we can just go back to Assumption 1, above, where you talked about "Self'. Free that (John 8:31-32; Romans 8: 6:11) and your keyboard will follow.
