Philosophy versus True Religion

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I would say, yes. How could the Logos not be Jesus, if Jesus was the perfect expression of the Logos? I understand how the Orthodox view must strive not to confuse the Logos with the flesh, semantically. What I'm suggesting is that we cannot know the Logos other than phenomenologically, which is why Christ says, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father ...[text shortened]... Jesus Christ since Jesus Christ is His exact expression (indeed Jesus is the Logos Himself).

Okay. That goes to the caveat I gave to Kirksey. If you are going to use the name Jesus as synonymous with the pre-existing Logos/Son, then I understand where you are coming from. I tend to use it differently, but both usages seem to have a long tradition in Christian writings. One could say, in terms of the dual-nature, that I tend to use the name Jesus to refer to the human side of that, while using the title ho Christos for the whole thing, and the Logos/Son for the divine side. (“Side” is really an inappropriate term, from the point of view of Chalcedonian Christology, I realize.)

If you have any background in it, this goes very much to the arguments between the Chalcedonians (who became the “orthodox” ) and the Arians, both of whom considered themselves to be committed Christians.

The whole notion of incarnation (however one views that!) is the distinguishing mark of Christianity (as I see it anyway). Everything else follows from that. That’s why the folks in the early church spent so much time arguing over it. These were bright, bright people (on all sides), who took their faith seriously. And I think it is an error to think that everything is so scripturally clearcut that all their efforts were in vain—and I am not accusing you of that: you have proved your mettle in difficult exegesis in the midst of argument.

I frankly only find Chalcedonian Christology really interesting.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I wouldn't say that Christ's statement is circular. Those who seek, find. What is circular is the alternative, seeking but not finding, and I think many would like to keep it that way. A great deal of honesty with oneself is required to truly seek the truth about something, in order to counteract any personal bias or prejudice. A predispositio e miraculous in nature. The writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson are a prime example of this.

I didn't mean the statement itself was circular. What is circular is the assumption behind your post. Your "knowledge" is guaranteed by the divinity of Christ, which is itself one of the things you have "knowledge" of.

You would presumably say this is a virtuous circle, illuminated by the flame of self-evidence. For others - me, for example - it is not. It is not, therefore, an argument to convince the atheist. It is simply a statement of your beliefs.

Descartes came up against this sort of problem when he tried to rebuiilt the world from "clear and distinct" ideas after his exercise in scepticism.

One question a rational person might ask is why your god would create a world in which some people are gifted salvation through this self-evidence, while others are not. You can of course assume that this self-evidence is available to all, and simply denied by non-believers because of their arrogance or prejudice; equally, though, this attitude will strike rational non-believers as arrogant and prejudiced.

Basically, you are shouting in a soundproof room.

Originally posted by bbarr
I breathlessly await your demonstration of this claim.

"Even logic and reason needs that Jesus be the incarnate creator. Without that central truth everything else fails."


"I breathlessly await your demonstration of this claim."


I hope you're still breathing.

There is only one individual in all creation qualified to take away our sin. And that is God himself. The word of God, the Bible, is full of descriptions of who Jesus is. It is no wonder that this truth, that Jesus is the incarnate God, is so maligned. The same goes for the resurrection. Destroy the validity of these truths and everything else the Bible teaches is suspect.

"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"
"But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:"
"In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them."
"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:"
"And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:"
"Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;"
"All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."
"He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not."

Originally posted by vistesd
I understand your position. I take no offense. I do not think that your position accords with some very ancient and still extant (most predominantly in the Eastern Orthodox churches) theological views. The Christianity of the period from 100-600/800 C.E. seems to me to be, for the most part, vastly different from Protestantism.

Luther’s Reformati ...[text shortened]... have in the past and undoubtedly will in the future (we have occasionally agreed). No problem.[/b]

Visted,

There is an utter simplicity to truth about the Gospel. Millions of people who know little of comparative religion, or the history of Christian doctrine, or of councils and creeds, have in the simplicity of their faith received the living Person of the the resurrected Jesus.

"the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)

In resurrection this man, Jesus transfigured Himself into a form in which He could enter into the innermost part of our beings. It is divine. It is mystical. It is mysterious. But it is very real.

Christ, in resurrection, became the Divine Life imparting and Life Giving Spirit to convey Himself into those who receive Him.

He is as available to be contacted as the air that surrounds us. God said that He would pour out His Spirit upon all flesh. Like the atmosphere that is upon all people throughout the world, God has dispened into this world the life giving Spirit Who is the resurrected man Jesus in His "pneumatic" form.

For Him to give life absolutely means for Him to give God to people. It is to give the whole Triune God - Father, Son, Holy Spirit to people and into people.

It is good to learn many things. But there is a simplicty to receiving Christ as the Spirit into our spirit that the two spirits may be joined together:

"He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor. 6:17)

But if you don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead and if you don't believe that He is a living Person, how can you recieve One who you don't believe is alive?

You can't. And you won't.

The simplicity of this alludes many thoughtful people. You must remember that He said we must come as little children?

Originally posted by dottewell
I didn't mean the statement itself was circular. What is circular is the assumption behind your post. Your "knowledge" is guaranteed by the divinity of Christ, which is itself one of the things you have "knowledge" of.

You would presumably say this is a virtuous circle, illuminated by the flame of self-evidence. For others - me, for example - it is not. elievers as arrogant and prejudiced.

Basically, you are shouting in a soundproof room.

You can of course assume that this self-evidence is available to all, and simply denied by non-believers because of their arrogance or prejudice; equally, though, this attitude will strike rational non-believers as arrogant and prejudiced.

The apostle John said that Jesus Christ is the "true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world" (John 1:9), and, "In him was life; and the life was the light of men" (John 1:4). Therefore, I am not claiming that you are void of the knowledge of Christ, indeed every man enters this world with a portion of His light. The point I'm making is that the "full knowledge of the truth" is that Christ Jesus is the "true Light" of not only the world but of your own inner life, and that it is a shame to never arrive at the full knowledge of the Truth.

"He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not... as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name" (John 1:10-12).

Neither am I claiming definitively that you or anybody else is doomed, since I have no idea who will ultimately be saved. I know how to be saved, not who will be saved. As I said in a previous post, God is just, and a just God judges justly; meaning, he judges according to the knowledge an individual has, not according to knowledge that individual doesn't have. And only God knows the secrets of men's hearts.

Originally posted by jaywill
That post was not meant to be disrepectful. It was meant to be frank and honest. The poster is frank and honest with me.

However, I did notice that after having asked you to forgive me a comment made about a year ago, you showed not a whole lot of willingness to accept my humble apology.

Rather I see more vicious innuendos designed to make me lo ...[text shortened]... nt to.

You can just put your Bible over there with your pile of X-Men comics.

I don't care about apologies from internet personas.

It's really none of your business, but the name "no1marauder" comes from a softball team that I was the manager of. Get it? At any rate, I'd rather read Marvel Comics (though I lean towards history or chess books) than the turgid ramblings of Witness Lee or you particulary when neither of you can answer a direct and important theological question.

Originally posted by josephw
"Even logic and reason needs that Jesus be the incarnate creator. Without that central truth everything else fails."


"I breathlessly await your demonstration of this claim."


I hope you're still breathing.

There is only one individual in all creation qualified to take away our sin. And that is God himself. The word of God, the Bible, is full of s in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not."

Right, so when were you going to show that logic and reason require an incarnate creator?

Here is an instance of logical inference (where 'P' and 'Q' are arbitrary propositions):

(1) P.

(2) If P, then Q.

(3) Therefore, Q.

Now, this form of inference, called 'modus ponens' is necessarily truth-preserving. If (1) and (2) are true, then (3) must also be true.

Please show me how this validity of this inference schema relies on an incarnate creator.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I don't care about apologies from internet personas.

It's really none of your business, but the name "no1marauder" comes from a softball team that I was the manager of. Get it? At any rate, I'd rather read Marvel Comics (though I lean towards history or chess books) than the turgid ramblings of Witness Lee or you particulary when neither of you can answer a direct and important theological question.

I don't care about apologies from internet personas.


And I don't care to sniff the mental vomit from second rate trolls who pretend they're interested in theological discussion.

I bet you never read a paragraph of anything ever written by Witness Lee.

Originally posted by bbarr
Right, so when were you going to show that logic and reason require an incarnate creator?

Here is an instance of logical inference (where 'P' and 'Q' are arbitrary propositions):

(1) P.

(2) If P, then Q.

(3) Therefore, Q.

Now, this form of inference, called 'modus ponens' is necessarily truth-preserving. If (1) and (2) are true, then (3) must a ...[text shortened]...
Please show me how this validity of this inference schema relies on an incarnate creator.

Bbarr,
I have seen that challenged before.
It was by William of Okham.

What is challenged is the fundamental reality of Causation.
Without causation, Logic itself is mere guesswork.

Okham purposed that "God's Will" is the very glue of the Universe that makes Causation possible. And that at any given moment, God could change that.

I find that a stretch, but I believe it was actually somewhat related to Descartes's Method that he was able to step backwards in Metaphysics to the root of Causation.

I am not an expert on Okham, so I may be remembering it incorrectly.
I also don't see any point in questioning causation or stepping back quite that far in Metaphysics.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]I don't care about apologies from internet personas.


And I don't care to sniff the mental vomit from second rate trolls who pretend they're interested in theological discussion.

I bet you never read a paragraph of anything ever written by Witness Lee.[/b]

Just answer the question and stop being an obnoxious child. Or admit that you have no answer and stop calling Jesus the "Son of God".

Originally posted by mdhall

Without causation, Logic itself is mere guesswork.

Wrong.

Originally posted by mdhall
Bbarr,
I have seen that challenged before.
It was by William of Okham.

What is challenged is the fundamental reality of Causation.
Without causation, Logic itself is mere guesswork.

Okham purposed that "God's Will" is the very glue of the Universe that makes Causation possible. And that at any given moment, God could change that.

I find that a s on't see any point in questioning causation or stepping back quite that far in Metaphysics.

The argument schema above has nothing to do with causation, but rather with the logical relationships between propositions. Suppose we substitute actual propositions for the variables in the inference schema above:

(1) John is taller than Mary

(2) If John is taller than Mary, then Mary is shorter than John.

(3) Hence, Mary is shorter that John.


OR

(1) My cat is on the couch.

(2) If my cat is on the couch, then my cat is not outside.

(3) Therefore, my cat is not outside.


Neither of these examples have anything to do with causation. What they do point out is that the inference schema above guarantees that if (1) and (2) are true, then (3) must also be true. That does not mean that (1) and (2) together cause (3) to be true. The premises of arguments do not exert causal force on previously false propositions to change them into being true.

Roger that.

Originally posted by mdhall
Roger that.

The cat might object...

====================================

Just answer the question and stop being an obnoxious child. Or admit that you have no answer and stop calling Jesus the "Son of God".
==========================================


Read my lips. I CHOOSE not to talk with you.

If you want to break your arm patting yourself on the back that you have me stumped or something, go ahead. No, you do not have me stumped with your question. I choose to let you believe whatever you want to believe.


I CHOOSE to talk with other posters beside you.

Now, tell us how that is all Witness Lee's fault and run along and troll with someone else.