Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Divinity of Jesus
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 151 of 517 (457945)
02-26-2008 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by iano
02-26-2008 11:28 AM


Re: Faith - the way God chose
I'm afraid you're not in a position to state that someone doesn't know x by faith. Such a statement would be making the claim that the only ways to know things are by means which exclude by faith.
This statement is untrue. Everything is a position of faith Ian. My evidence based, external sources based methodology is faith based as well. Faith that my approach is reliable. But you cannot simply make a statement, and absolute statement at that, that something 100% happened in history based on the fact that you think everything in a book is true.
Now if Raph had said, "I believe that Jesus ACTUALLY DID these things", then that is fine with me, that is at least intellectually honest.
Such a position is a philosophical position - and a faith-based philosophical position at that
Well, since your premise was false it follows that your conclusion is too.
If I said I had a meal with Audrey Hepburn last night you would probably believe me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by iano, posted 02-26-2008 11:28 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by iano, posted 02-26-2008 6:51 PM Brian has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 152 of 517 (457992)
02-26-2008 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by GDR
11-12-2007 7:44 PM


Re: On the Divinity of Jesus
Point in case. The word translated as 'virgin' here is 'Almah' in the Hebrew. The word as translated into the Greek, which Matthew used, was 'parthenos' which often meant virgin,but was not exclusively virgin.
The Hebrew term means 'young maiden'.
And, if you read Isaiah on context, Isaiah is talking about his wife, since it says in Isaiah 8:4 "I went to the prophetess and insured she conceived'". Now.. even if she WAS a virgin in 7:14, there is only one way I know of back then a man could 'insure' a young lady conceived.
That doesn't keep her virginity intact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by GDR, posted 11-12-2007 7:44 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by GDR, posted 02-26-2008 7:40 PM ramoss has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 153 of 517 (457993)
02-26-2008 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Brian
02-26-2008 11:04 AM


Re: Faith - the way God chose
You gave me a lot of answers.
I didn't see you reply with infallible historical proof that your parents are really your parents.
I saw no reply that you were equally as rigorous about exploring all possible methods of falsifying thier claims.
Should I take it that you learned to trust them and its not worth debating?
If so, there's also such a thing as gradually learning to trust God.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Brian, posted 02-26-2008 11:04 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Brian, posted 02-27-2008 6:30 AM jaywill has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 154 of 517 (457994)
02-26-2008 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Brian
02-26-2008 1:42 PM


Re: Faith - the way God chose
iano writes:
I'm afraid you're not in a position to state that someone doesn't know x by faith. Such a statement would be making the claim that the only ways to know things are by means which exclude "by faith"
Brian writes:
This statement is untrue. Everything is a position of faith Ian. My evidence based, external sources based methodology is faith based as well. Faith that my approach is reliable.
I appreciate your candour regarding your faith position, but I wasn't referring to that kind of faith. I was talking about Christian faith. Your argument...
But you cannot simply make a statement, and absolute statement at that, that something 100% happened in history based on the fact that you think everything in a book is true.
...doesn't address my statement. I'm not saying I think x is the case. I'm saying I have faith x is the case. Until such time as you possess a way of knowing for sure that biblical faith = mere thinking, absolute statements regarding biblical faith should be downgraded to tentitive statements.
It is worth noting that faith can vary. Faith unto belief (that Adam and Eve were actual people) falls short of certain knowledge. Faith unto knowing (that Jesus walked the earth 2000 odd years ago) occupies the same territory as knowing that God exists - by means of this "substance" or "fuel" called faith.
It is also worth nothing that a common understanding of the word faith: "blind and unevidenced belief" is not a definition of the word faith as it is utilised in the Bible. It is the biblical version I am referencing when I talk of Christian faith.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Brian, posted 02-26-2008 1:42 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Brian, posted 02-27-2008 6:45 AM iano has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 155 of 517 (458001)
02-26-2008 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by ramoss
02-26-2008 6:29 PM


Re: On the Divinity of Jesus
ramoss writes:
The word as translated into the Greek, which Matthew used, was 'parthenos' which often meant virgin,but was not exclusively virgin.
The Hebrew term means 'young maiden'.
"Parthenos" means young maiden but specifically one that hasn't known a man.
ramoss writes:
And, if you read Isaiah on context, Isaiah is talking about his wife, since it says in Isaiah 8:4 "I went to the prophetess and insured she conceived'
I checked 2 translations (NIV & NASB) and neither had the word insured in that verse. My point to Brian, if you refer back, was that the idea of a virgin birth was not totally foreign to the early Jews.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by ramoss, posted 02-26-2008 6:29 PM ramoss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Brian, posted 02-27-2008 6:48 AM GDR has not replied
 Message 160 by IamJoseph, posted 02-27-2008 10:40 PM GDR has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 156 of 517 (458082)
02-27-2008 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by jaywill
02-26-2008 6:51 PM


Re: Faith - the way God chose
You gave me a lot of answers.
And questions?
I didn't see you reply with infallible historical proof that your parents are really your parents.
There’s no such thing as infallible historical proof Jay, which was one of the points I was originally making.
I saw no reply that you were equally as rigorous about exploring all possible methods of falsifying thier claims.
I had no reason to, but if I did, as a postmodernist, I would have to leave open the possibility that I could have been switched at birth, although this is highly unlikely, it is not impossible.
The thing is Jay, as far as history goes, the ”truth’ about the past is really only ”degrees of truth’, we never make absolute claims about something that happened in the past, especially thousands of years ago. This is simply what history is.
Should I take it that you learned to trust them and its not worth debating?
Not at all. I am perfectly open to the idea that my mum and dad may not have been my real mum and dad, it is not a problem in any way, shape or form for me to do so.
In fact, your little scenario regarding my parents is really supporting the point that I am making. So, thanks for that.
If so, there's also such a thing as gradually learning to trust God.
But, what does God have to do with the events recorded in the Bible?
Also, if ”God’ said that, about 4500 years ago, people lived to 969 years of age, do we blindly accept that or do we question it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by jaywill, posted 02-26-2008 6:51 PM jaywill has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 157 of 517 (458086)
02-27-2008 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by iano
02-26-2008 6:51 PM


Re: Faith - the way God chose
I'm not saying I think x is the case. I'm saying I have faith x is the case.
Which, essentially, is what I want Raphael to acknowledge. His claim that Jesus ACTUALLY DID these events is not a stance that a historian can take. If Raph had said he BELIEVED Jesus actually did these things then I would not have even replied. It is the abuse of what history is that I am objecting to.
You may well have faith that X and Y happened, but when you come to ask someone else to believe that X and Y happened and all you have to convince them of that is your faith,, then how far do you think this stance should get you?
Historians need evidence, sources with which to come to conclusions, and I am afraid that becuase someone has faith something happened does not make that event true. it MAY be true, and that's all I am asking Raph to acknowledge. Jesus may have raised Lazurus from the dead, but then again, he may not have.
Until such time as you possess a way of knowing for sure that biblical faith = mere thinking, absolute statements regarding biblical faith should be downgraded to tentitive statements.
Well we do have a way, it is called research.
It is worth noting that faith can vary. Faith unto belief (that Adam and Eve were actual people) falls short of certain knowledge.
Is there such a thing as certain knowledge. You didnt strike me as someone who would believe this since your best (only) argument for the eixistence of GOd is that He cannot be disproven.
Faith unto knowing (that Jesus walked the earth 2000 odd years ago) occupies the same territory as knowing that God exists - by means of this "substance" or "fuel" called faith.
Well, I'd argue that it doesnt occupy the same territory becuase, as I said to Jay, history is really degrees of truth. Now, that someone called Jesus walked the earth 2000 years ago does not really take that much of a leap of faith to believe. There were thousands of Jesus' walking the earth back then, we kow men existed then, we know Jesus/Joshua was a popular name, so it is completely PLAUSIBLE that He existed.
Now apply the same appraoch to GOd and we have fairytales to deal with. We have an entity that no one can define, we have an entity that cannot be objectively shown to exist, we have an entity who is said to contradict Himslef every five minutes, we have an all knowing God that appears to be as thick as two short planks, and we have an entity for whom we have no good reason to believe exists etc.
It is the biblical version I am referencing when I talk of Christian faith.
So back to the world of circular reasoning Ian?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by iano, posted 02-26-2008 6:51 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by iano, posted 02-27-2008 10:24 AM Brian has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 158 of 517 (458087)
02-27-2008 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by GDR
02-26-2008 7:40 PM


Re: On the Divinity of Jesus
HI GDR,
My point to Brian, if you refer back, was that the idea of a virgin birth was not totally foreign to the early Jews.
But it is foreign to early Jews. Isaiah does not refer to a 'virgin', that was the very point that people make about this verse.
The word 'virgin' is a mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14, so the word 'virgin' wasn't used.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by GDR, posted 02-26-2008 7:40 PM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by IamJoseph, posted 02-27-2008 10:51 PM Brian has not replied
 Message 164 by IamJoseph, posted 03-22-2008 7:44 AM Brian has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 159 of 517 (458110)
02-27-2008 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Brian
02-27-2008 6:45 AM


Re: Faith - the way God chose
iano writes:
I'm not saying I think x is the case. I'm saying I have faith x is the case.
Brian writes:
Which, essentially, is what I want Raphael to acknowledge. His claim that Jesus ACTUALLY DID these events is not a stance that a historian can take.
Is Raphael a historian or was he making a claim utilising the tools a historian would? I doubt it. He (and I) can make the claim from a position of faith and be far surer that these events occurred than we could ever be were we to utilise historical tools.
If Raph had said he BELIEVED Jesus actually did these things then I would not have even replied. It is the abuse of what history is that I am objecting to.
I understand "History" to mean what occurred in the past. One way to approach the past is to use historical tools. I don't think Raphael is using that approach. That he doesn't use those tools doesn't abuse what history is, it only ignores one particular set of tools used in the area of examining history. Another way to know what occurred in the past is being fuelled by God-given faith. I know you don't believe this but that is a different matter.
You may well have faith that X and Y happened, but when you come to ask someone else to believe that X and Y happened and all you have to convince them of that is your faith,, then how far do you think this stance should get you?
It's hard to know. Whilst being aware that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, I cannot know whether a particular proclaimation of the gospel (or any part) thereof will ever contribute to a person coming to belief in God. Suffice to say that my reasons for proclaiming the gospel have nothing to do with an expectation that anyone believe what I say there and then. I'm pretty sure that what I say will be soon forgotten anyway.
To be honest, I think you'd have to have a screw loose to believe a faith-based statement like "Jesus lived and performed miracles" just because you read it on an internet discussion forum.
Historians need evidence, sources with which to come to conclusions, and I am afraid that becuase someone has faith something happened does not make that event true. it MAY be true, and that's all I am asking Raph to acknowledge. Jesus may have raised Lazurus from the dead, but then again, he may not have.
That I or Raphael can be certain that Jesus did the things recorded is of no use in the setting where historical-evidencing is required. It would be mixing up two ways of knowing things.
Until such time as you possess a way of knowing for sure that biblical faith = mere thinking, absolute statements regarding biblical faith should be downgraded to tentitive statements.
Well we do have a way, it is called research.
Could you reference a paper published?
Is there such a thing as certain knowledge. You didnt strike me as someone who would believe this since your best (only) argument for the eixistence of GOd is that He cannot be disproven.
This is strange given that I don't tend to argue for the existance of God. I have often conceded that being certain of something (ie: "I know x to be the case") doesn't mean it actually is the case in an absolute sense. We could all be characters in some alien kids playstation game afterall. No one could claim their certainty about anything to be absolute.
Well, I'd argue that it doesnt occupy the same territory because, as I said to Jay, history is really degrees of truth.
I wouldn't have thought so. I would have thought there is only one history and degrees (and ways) by which to access what occurred in it. Knowing one bit for sure is but a degree. But it is a sure degree.
Now apply the same appraoch to GOd and we have fairytales to deal with.
Let's have a look
We have an entity that no one can define
To be expected if the object you are trying to define is too big to circumvent.
we have an entity that cannot be objectively shown to exist
A world of blind men would say the same thing about red.
we have an entity who is said to contradict Himself every five minutes,
I've only heard his "voice" directly once that I know about. He didn't contradict himself that time.
we have an all knowing God that appears to be as thick as two short planks
D'ya remember Columbo?
and we have an entity for whom we have no good reason to believe exists etc.
Of course you haven't a good reason. You have no (or at least insufficient) evidence to believe he exists. This thick as two plank God isn't thick enough to ask you to believe in him without good reason. Indeed, it's only after you have been "saved" that you get to find out that God actually exists. He turns up so that you are in no doubt.
(God asking you to believe in his existance without first providing you with clear and completely compelling evidence as to his existance! Now that's funny )
It is the biblical version I am referencing when I talk of Christian faith.
So back to the world of circular reasoning Ian?
We can use the blind-belief definition of faith found in dictionaries or we can use the evidenced-faith definition used in the Bible. It's not so much circular reasoning as using the definition of the faith under discussion. We were talking about biblical faith weren't we? So why not use the biblical definition of faith?
Note that all definitions involve "circular reasoning". The defintion of a dog is "hairy animal with 4 legs and a wagging tail, etc". A hairy animal with 4 legs and a wagging tail. etc is defined as a dog.
Circular.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Brian, posted 02-27-2008 6:45 AM Brian has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 160 of 517 (458244)
02-27-2008 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by GDR
02-26-2008 7:40 PM


Re: On the Divinity of Jesus
quote:
My point to Brian, if you refer back, was that the idea of a virgin birth was not totally foreign to the early Jews.
It is wholly foreign and alien, involving numerous wars with numerous nations: one which occured in the midst of the emerging christianity, 2000 years ago. 1.1 Million Jews sacrificed their lives rejecting a divine roman emperor. It is also the core reason christianity seperated from its once mother religion. Why is this even debated?
AN HONEST DISAGREEMENT BEATS A DISHONEST AGREEMENT.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by GDR, posted 02-26-2008 7:40 PM GDR has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 161 of 517 (458246)
02-27-2008 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Brian
02-27-2008 6:48 AM


Re: On the Divinity of Jesus
The question of understanding Isaiah should not be based on selective quotes - which have now been acknowledged as a bad translation even by christian scholars, but better to look at the texts comprehensively: there is absolutely no way it can allign with the gospels. Almost every sentence says that.
It is not a slant on any of the two religions to acknowledge an irreconciable variance in core doctrines: both are sincere and Gdly inclined - but without that core difference, one would not exist today, and this would be christianity - it would be another denomination of Judaism. A religion can only prevail if it has a core doctrine which cannot allign with another - else there would be no reason for that religion's emergence. Its not like choosing a favourite car color.
If a christian observed the OT for 2000 years prior to the gospels, they would never accept the gospels, and the jews rejected similar doctrines numerously throughout history. We see this syndrome with christianity rejected Islam, even with a less variance towards the Gospels than Judaism.
A religion cannot be followed by a sequal - this has never occured, and negates the reason for one of them. Thus the non-confusing:
'YOU SHALL NOT ADD OR SUBTRACT ANYTHING FROM THIS BOOK OF LAWS'.
And:
'ABRAHAM SHALL BE THE FATHER OF MANY NATIONS [RELIGIONS]'
And MANY contradicts sequals.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Brian, posted 02-27-2008 6:48 AM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by jaywill, posted 03-08-2008 8:39 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 162 of 517 (459508)
03-08-2008 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by IamJoseph
02-27-2008 10:51 PM


Re: On the Divinity of Jesus
In the Hebrew Scriptures you certainly have a covenant of God. You also have God promising to make a new covenant. So you can have the one God making an Old Covenant and a New Covenant - the same God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by IamJoseph, posted 02-27-2008 10:51 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by IamJoseph, posted 03-22-2008 7:18 AM jaywill has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 163 of 517 (461100)
03-22-2008 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by jaywill
03-08-2008 8:39 AM


Re: On the Divinity of Jesus
Absolutely, I agree. This is established with the assurence of many nations via Abraham [nation also refers to religion, as in 'The nation of Israel']. Other statutes give the same meaning, including HE SPEAKS IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLE; HE UNDERSTANDETH THE NATURE OF MAN; ONLY THE SOUL THAT SINNETH IT SHALL PAY; etc.
After all, what merit in getting a reward for belonging to a certain religious group - as the only claim for merit? What is required of humanity, IMHO, is what was exemplified in Abraham. He strived with God in a manner not seen any place. Normally, in revelation, a person becomes so awe struck, that there is no possibility of striving, only to perform the will. But with Abraham, he argued for the saving of even the most evil city of Sodom -a markedly different religious group from his. He was blessed even as he was wrong, because of his good intention.
This says, humanity has to strive with heaven for all humanity, and reject the notion of preferences of any kind. IOW, if a savior or messiah came along today, and chose any certain peoples as meriting special bonus - that particular peoples wshould reject that gift, or strive against it, and stay instead till all can be saved. Sometimes, a law is given to test us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by jaywill, posted 03-08-2008 8:39 AM jaywill has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 164 of 517 (461101)
03-22-2008 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Brian
02-27-2008 6:48 AM


Re: On the Divinity of Jesus
Correct. It refers to maiden, which has been acknowledged by numerous christian scholars. However, even if there was a mention of a virgin, it would still not equate to the conclusion of allignment with the gospels, by a basic reading of all its other texts.
I see christianity as a belief system which acknowledges the OT, but is still a new and different religion from Judaism, and this is fine - it need not have to be a follow-up or culmination, and can stand on its own. Because its adherents have a sincere and genuine belief in it - and this belief is not associated by Jews or who follow the OT only, for 2000 years before christianity emerged. Both religions can stand on their own - without the need of minimising or negating the other.
This is what is required of each religion and how it is tested. If there was to be one single religion, this would have been very easily maintained by God - but it does seem this is not the case, and the premise of exclusivity can only be seen as a form of politicking and ego - a common trait throughout humanity's history.
The order of laws is seen in the 10 Commandments, whereby the factor of honesty comes before all other moral/ethical laws [NOT TO TAKE THE NAME IN VAIN refers to honesty]. Honesty is different from truth, which is a subject and elusive premise; honesty refers to truthfullness as opposed truth. The next factor is not love, but respect [HONOR THY PARENTS]. Thus there is very little merit in love, when not preceded by those two factors.
Although christians say their belief is based on virgin birth purity and sacrifice, it's true reasoning may lie elsewhere, such as a mysterious compulsion, which made some see what others did not - and vice versa. Without this compulsion factor, no amount of virgin births, resurrections and turning water to wine would have had any impact: it did not with jews and the muslims.
Further, if sacrifice was the name of the game - then the greatest sacrifice was seen by 1.1 million Jews who willingly sacrificed themselves, their families and their nation in defense of ther belief against Rome's depraved decrees - and they have been doing the same for 2000 years, against far greater opposition forces than any other. Thus the compultion mystery applies here. None were bad, non-believers or anything of the sort: each would give their lives for their beliefs - and nothing more can be asked of any of them. Thus it says, not just to love thy neighbour [which can be a self interest motive], but to LOVE THE STRANGER. Therein is the rub.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Brian, posted 02-27-2008 6:48 AM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by jaywill, posted 03-25-2008 6:43 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 165 of 517 (461476)
03-25-2008 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by IamJoseph
03-22-2008 7:44 AM


Re: On the Divinity of Jesus
Although christians say their belief is based on virgin birth purity and sacrifice, it's true reasoning may lie elsewhere, such as a mysterious compulsion, which made some see what others did not - and vice versa. Without this compulsion factor, no amount of virgin births, resurrections and turning water to wine would have had any impact: it did not with jews and the muslims.
The Lord Jesus was sacrificed not straight out of the womb with "virgin birth purity." That is a very shallow understanding of the New Testament.
Christ lived a life of thirty three and one half years of a sinless testimony before He was sacrificed as the Lamb of God without blemish.
It is more the life that He lived after being born that qualifies Him to be the spotless offering as the reality of the all the symbolic offerings of the Old Testament.
It is not simply because He was born of a virgin with "virgin birth purity".
Rather the book of Hebrews says that He learned obediance through the things which He suffered, and being perfected He became the author of eternal salvation to all those who believe.
That is a paraphrase.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by IamJoseph, posted 03-22-2008 7:44 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by IamJoseph, posted 03-25-2008 8:50 PM jaywill has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024