Page 2 of 3 [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,962
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

13 Apr 2022, 8:40 pm

cubedemon6073 wrote:
a. Including contradictions.

b Changes the truth value of With God, All things are Possible = True to With God, All things are Possible = False.


Ummm...so this isn't a very interesting argument. Take the whole "boulder too heavy idea." God is all-powerful, so if God creates something He can't lift, God is supposedly weak.

The problem is you still don't understand the concept of logical possibility. Ayn Rand famously said that contradictions cannot exist. The reason contradictions can't exist is because contradictions are not logically possible. Square circles are not logically possible--you can't conceive of a square circle because a square is a square and a circle is a circle. Mathematical proofs of squaring the circle have been attempted, but any attempt at doing so resulted in something that was not a circle. Those things not only do not exist, but they also CAN NOT exist in any possible world.

God is unable to break the logical law of non-contradiction. However, it should be noted that this is actually a strength of a perfect God. Human minds irrationally accept contradictions and even manage simultaneously to hold multiple contradictory ideas as true. This is not a strength of being human. It is a flaw. And if God by His nature was self-contradictory, He wouldn't be God.

Getting back to the boulder too heavy for God to lift, it would be a contradiction if God acted contrary to His own nature. Try to imagine liquid water that isn't wet. By definition, all liquids are wet. Liquid water that isn't wet cannot exist, same as the idea of God not being able to create a stone too heavy for Him to lift. I don't accept the premise that logical consistency is a weakness. If it were possible for God to create such a stone, that in itself would be a weakness and a flaw. The inability to act contrary to His nature is one of the things that makes God as powerful as He is.



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,874

13 Apr 2022, 9:20 pm

AngelRho, what you are missing is that let's say something is logically possible then you and others should be able to explain how the underlying mechanism works.

Kites and others have done that extremely well. You simply say it just is.

How does the underlying mechanism work and an entity I will call x can simply be eternal with no beginning and no end?

Remember, I was created with a certain nature.

This, right here. https://www.familyeducation.com/life/as ... -logic-boy

You're asking me to take something on faith and without question that makes absolutely no sense to me and is extremely convoluted to me and if I don't then I will burn for all eternity.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,962
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

13 Apr 2022, 9:33 pm

cubedemon6073 wrote:
AngelRho, what you are missing is that let's say something is logically possible then you and others should be able to explain how the underlying mechanism works.

That's not what logical possibility is about. Whether something is logically possible doesn't account for how something works, and in the case of what you're talking about, HOW something works is irrelevant.



ToughDiamond
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,965

13 Apr 2022, 10:03 pm

kitesandtrainsandcats wrote:

I'm not sure that specific answer is as logical as it would have been if what Jesus had said had been that rich people can't be saved.

He said it is hard for them to enter the kingdom of heaven, not that they can not enter.
Several times there is commentary on people who relied on their riches for their security in life, and for other things too; and that their attitude of self sufficiency was a mistake, and what they should ultimately depend on for their ultimate security is God.

I expect the disciples got a mental image of their efforts to thread needles when mending clothes, making tents, and such, and had thoughts along the lines of, "I have enough trouble getting thread through a needle's eye, there ain't no way anyone will ever shove a camel through that little bitty hole, so how is there any way anyone can ever be saved!?"

Jesus' answer could be paraphrased as something along the lines of, "Bingo! Just like no human will never ever poke a camel that's taller than a human is through a tentmaking needle, humans will also never be able to save themselves from the consequences of sin.
People saving themselves is impossible, never gonna happen, but God can save, and he can save those who are considered the least possible to be save-able such as prostitutes and tax collectors and Romans."

Well, if he'd said "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for anybody to enter the kingdom of God" then the whole passage would make more sense, but the quote is "........than for a rich man to enter......"



ToughDiamond
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,965

13 Apr 2022, 10:33 pm

note what precedes that eye of a needle exchange between Jesus and the disciples,
https://biblehub.com/lsv/luke/18.htm

"
9And He also spoke to some who have been trusting in themselves that they were righteous, and have been despising the rest, this allegory: 10“Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee, and the other a tax collector; 11the Pharisee having stood by himself, thus prayed: God, I thank You that I am not as the rest of men, rapacious, unrighteous, adulterers, or even as this tax collector; 12I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all things—as many as I possess. 13And the tax collector, having stood far off, would not even lift up the eyes to the sky, but was striking on his breast, saying, God be propitious to me—the sinner! 14I say to you, this one went down declared righteous, to his house, rather than that one: for everyone who is exalting himself will be humbled, and he who is humbling himself will be exalted.”

15And they were also bringing the babies near, that He may touch them, and the disciples having seen, rebuked them, 16and Jesus having called them near, said, “Permit the little children to come to Me, and do not forbid them, for of such is the Kingdom of God; 17truly I say to you, whoever may not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child, may not enter into it.”

18And a certain ruler questioned Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what having done—will I inherit continuous life?”

19And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one [is] good, except one—God; 20you have known the commands: You may not commit adultery, You may not murder, You may not steal, You may not bear false witness, Honor your father and your mother.”

21And he said, “All these I kept from my youth”;

22and having heard these things, Jesus said to him, “Yet one thing to you is lacking: all things—as many as you have—sell, and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in Heaven, and come, follow Me”;

23and he, having heard these things, became very sorrowful, for he was exceedingly rich.

24And Jesus having seen him become very sorrowful, said, “How hardly will those having riches enter into the Kingdom of God! 25For it is easier for a camel to enter through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God.”

26And those who heard, said, “And who is able to be saved?”

27And He said, “The things impossible with men are possible with God.”
"

:arrow: That bit about "9And He also spoke to some who have been trusting in themselves that they were righteous,"
Is part of what is referenced in “The things impossible with men are possible with God.”
It is impossible for men, humans, to make themselves, ourselves, righteous enough to inherit eternal life.
It is, however, possible for God to make men, humans, righteous enough to inherit eternal life.



Ah, verse 26 is crucially different from the source I'd looked at (New King James Version), where straight after Jesus saying a rich man didn't make the grade, the disciples are said to be astonished and ask "who then can be saved?" So I guess it all hangs on which version most accurately represents the original text. That wouldn't be easy to determine, but it's conceptually possible. There must be a Bible scholar somewhere who would know. Failing that, we could in theory get hold of the original source material, learn the language, and translate it ourselves. That might take a while.

Though frankly it seems a wacky idea to me that only this deity can fix us. That would seem to take all the responsibility off us and lay it on the deity. I suppose what it's driving at is this idea that we're not good enough to make it on our own merits, that we have to go down on our knees and beg the deity's help, that it's not being good to other people that matters to this deity, it's whether or not we're willing to submit to him absolutely. And all we have is the word of priests for all this stuff. Hmmm.........



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,874

13 Apr 2022, 10:41 pm

AngelRho wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
AngelRho, what you are missing is that let's say something is logically possible then you and others should be able to explain how the underlying mechanism works.

That's not what logical possibility is about. Whether something is logically possible doesn't account for how something works, and in the case of what you're talking about, HOW something works is irrelevant.


AngelRho, if something is logically possible according to your definition meaning we can conceive of a reality or realm in which something can be so with no contradictions existing let's take this further.

Let's assume an entity x exists and has no contradictions and it is eternal. No beginning or end.

Then the possibility should exist that you or other Christians should be able to construct a model of this entity x and why this model would hold up without having any contradictions within the model.

Example: The video I posted before in the other thread of the double sided code explaining how this double sided code could "fall" up on a particular incline. <<<<< This is what I'm looking for.

How does it work for an entity x where x = God and x.Eternal = True? How does this work exactly?



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,874

13 Apr 2022, 10:44 pm

AngelRho, I have certain communication challenges. It may be a communication barrier is what is going on between us but sometimes it's difficult to understand some of your words. Aghogday, even more so.



ToughDiamond
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,965

13 Apr 2022, 11:55 pm

cubedemon6073 wrote:
AngelRho, I have certain communication challenges. It may be a communication barrier is what is going on between us but sometimes it's difficult to understand some of your words. Aghogday, even more so.

You're not alone in that. I don't think I have any particular communication challenges, and my comprehension abilities are thought to be above average, but I'm afraid have great difficulty understanding much of what those two gentlemen are talking about.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,962
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

14 Apr 2022, 1:44 am

ToughDiamond wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
AngelRho, I have certain communication challenges. It may be a communication barrier is what is going on between us but sometimes it's difficult to understand some of your words. Aghogday, even more so.

You're not alone in that. I don't think I have any particular communication challenges, and my comprehension abilities are thought to be above average, but I'm afraid have great difficulty understanding much of what those two gentlemen are talking about.

Logical possibility is simply anything that is conceivable or imaginable by the rational mind. Russel's teapot is logically possible. If something doesn't exist or seem to exist in our world, is it possible to imagine a world in which it exists? If so, it is logically possible.

If it is inconceivable, it is not logically possible. No possible world can be imagined in which God or anything else can both exist and not exist. No possible world can be imagined in which there is a square circle--the concept of a square circle is contradictory. A square is a square, a circle is a circle. It IS possible to conceive of a world in which the rules of mathematics allow us to square the circle, but it is impossible to do such a thing in THIS world. Logically possible things don't necessarily have to actually exist. It is unnecessary to have an explanation of how or why something COULD be. Logical possibility only requires that the rational mind be able to dream it up.

It is not logically possible for God to contradict Himself. If it were, He wouldn't be God. The question of whether God can create a certain stone is based on a logical impossibility because it violates the logical law of non-contradiction. God in His perfect nature cannot create such a stone any more than water can stop being wet. Moreover, even if we were to suppose God possessed the ability, it is unnecessary to assume that God MUST create that stone. The false premise the question is built upon is a contradiction--you must assume that God doesn't simply have the ability to do it, but that God actually does it. It is the premise that is wrong.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,633

14 Apr 2022, 12:35 pm



"No possible world can be imagined in which
God or anything else can both exist and not exist."

Yawn, Except in Each Individual View of Reality Where
Some Folks Experience What They

Describe

As God

And Some Do
Not In Relation to

What Other Folks Describe As God;

Let's Face Facts, if God Is Greater Than

Human Potentials, We Have No Way to Tell

God What God Can and Cannot Do; Just Evidence

Here That 'You Are God';

Yet Just A Part, And

Limited, Even As

Compared to The Person

Walking, Talking Next to Us,
Carefully Following the Paths
of Pre-Made Concrete Sidewalks;

Or Dancing And Singing Freely As
If Every Path In Life is New With No Constraints;

New, God Yes, In Original Creative Ways; For It's True,

Some Folks Cannot Relate to my Dance And Song Free;

Others Totally Get It, And Even Create A New Original
Dance And Song of

THeir Own Free;

Yet Some Humans Suggest

They Can 'Tale' God What God

Can And Cannot Do; When They

CanNot Even Do That With me; Yet Wait,

They Can Say It; Yet It Doesn't Change A Bit of Difference

in my Ability

to Actually be

O R i G i N a L

New And Creative...

Yawn, This Is Much More
Complex Than What is A Circle

or What is A Square as that's All Up to

How Each Individual Perceives Reality As Well...

Like Folks on 'DMT Trips,' Who See 'Machine Elves,'
Cross Culturally As Such, Or Others Who Just Imagine
Them in Similar More Sober Ways of Creativity and Express That

iN THeiR Art Similar
To What's Come Before;

Or Some Brand New Original Creation

That Takes Hundreds of Years to even Be Partially Understood...

Yet We Little Bitty Humans Believe That We Get to Tell God What

God Can And

Cannot Do;

i Suppose that's

Within the Realm

More of Folks Who Let
Others Tell Them What They Can And Cannot Do;
And Actually Believe it and Never Really Fully Bloom

in New Colors

iN A Year 'Round
Spring of their Own
Creating iN A Heaven Within Now;

Which Only Brings More Lucidity to
"Luke 17:21'; No Body Is Gonna Bring

(And By God Yes; 'John 14:12' TOO; THE
ONE VERSE ALMOST NO EVANGELICAL
CHRISTIAN UNDERSTANDS EVEN EXISTS;

At Least From the Innumerable Ones i've
Surveyed as An Anthropology Participant
Observer in the Locality That Once Held
The Record Book For Churches Per Capita;

As Typically, They Believe No One Can Do
Greater Works Than 'Jesus' Until They Hear
it From The Story, They Never Seem to Remember;
Okay, End of Very Long Parenthetical Statement Now)

Heaven Within to Anyone Now Yet The
Person Creating Their Heaven Within Now; Won't Come
From A Book Or Anyone Else; Only From Within; the 'Realest'

Place WHere

All Our Unique Realities

Start And End Now

And Perhaps Begin Again...

Anyway, Happy Good Friday And
Easter SuNDaY As NiGHT Makes DaY And Resurrection
oF LiGHT From DarK in Balance is A Metaphor For ALL Existence...

And in The Case of Humanity, Every Inhale of Peace Exhale of Love
A New Creation of Humanity Per Each and Every One of Us Uniquely or
Perhaps Less...

Yet coming

From A Small

Place in Our Entire

UniVerse Indeed; Yet Only

With Illusions of Distance, Space,
Time, And Matter When WHeRE
We aRe ALL All THaT iS ETeRNaLLY (GoD) Now

ALWaYS

Changing

NeW Even iF

We Cannot or

Will Not See This Reality New Now...

And 'BELieVE iT or Not Ripley and Or
Horatio'; Just BeCause it Hasn't Happened
Before, Verily Doesn't Mean it Wont Happen Now;
Story of my Life, For Damned Sure; And Resurrecting

Verily into New Creations Real,

ALWaYS New
Now With the
Caveat i Am Surely

Not the Only One oF ALL.



_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


kitesandtrainsandcats
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2016
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,322
Location: Missouri

14 Apr 2022, 3:19 pm

ToughDiamond wrote:
So I guess it all hangs on which version most accurately represents the original text.


Which is why I used the Literal Standard Version translation from the multiple offered on the website the text was copied from.

"Accurately representing" can be a bit of a job at times.
For instance, although I have forgotten their names, and where they might appear in the original texts, Greek has some verb tenses which do not exist in English grammar: what counts as accurate representation of those?

And there are occasional Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, words, phrases, which go further with denotative and/or connotative meaning/significance than their English equivalents: again, what counts as accurate translation of those?

And there are English words which have changed/morphed in meaning and usage since the 1600s when the KJV was was done. They do not alter the gospel but can impact the richness of some accounts and the complete understanding of them.
Today I would have to go look up the specifics but a couple which come to mind are the words meat and bread and fruit, they had different casual usage at that time than the specific way we use them today. For instance, at least one was used as a general term for food in much the way as sometimes Coke is used as a general term for all soda pop.

A classic example is our English word love: understanding that Greek has different individual words for different types of love sheds a whole new light on a classic Bible encounter between the resurrected Jesus and Peter who during the trial before the crucifixion had vehemently denied even knowing Jesus.

From, https://testeverythingblog.com/do-you-l ... 05169b86d7
"
Jesus asks Peter three times “do you love me?” Here is where the limitations of the English language hinder us. There is a dynamic in this conversation— a dance, if you will — where Peter not only moves toward Christ but Christ moves toward Peter.

Our English word love is used for so many things. We use it to describe our most intimate human relationships and how we feel about ice cream! In the original Greek in which John wrote his gospel, there were multiple words for different types of love.

Jesus asks Peter twice “do you love me?” using the Greek word agape, meaning a pure, unselfish, self-giving love. Peter responds by using the word philia, which refers to affection shared between friends. Philia is a wonderful kind of love, but it is less than agape. Agape is universal love; it is what we mean by the virtue of charity.

I was very pleased the first time I proclaimed this gospel in Spanish to discover that the distinction between these two loves is preserved in that language. The Spanish gospel has Jesus asking Peter, ¿me amas? from the word amor meaning “love.” But Peter responds te quiero, which carries the meaning “I love you,” but literally translates as “I want you.” Both express love, but te quiero does so much more casually.

Mindful of the literal meaning of quiere as “to want,” I can imagine Peter’s interior struggle as he considers Jesus’s question. He recognizes now the weakness of his own love. He knows he does not love Jesus with total, self-giving agape. But he wants Jesus. Despite his failures, he still wants Jesus. He wants to love him better than he does.

And that’s enough for Jesus.

Jesus does not reject Peter’s offer of a lesser love. He accepts it. He tells Peter to “feed my sheep.” Despite his inferior love, Christ gives Peter a share in his role as the Good Shepherd, placing the entire flock of the Church into Peter’s care.

And when Jesus asks Peter a third time, “do you love me?” he does not use the word agape. He uses the word philia, which is the love Peter was able to offer. He takes Peter’s offering of a lesser love and he magnifies it. He elevates it to a love that would lead Peter to the cross, the ultimate agape sacrifice of Christ. He elevates Peter’s philia into a love that would glorify God.
"


_________________
"There are a thousand things that can happen when you go light a rocket engine, and only one of them is good."
Tom Mueller of SpaceX, in Air and Space, Jan. 2011


ToughDiamond
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,965

14 Apr 2022, 3:46 pm

AngelRho wrote:
Logical possibility is simply anything that is conceivable or imaginable by the rational mind. Russel's teapot is logically possible. If something doesn't exist or seem to exist in our world, is it possible to imagine a world in which it exists? If so, it is logically possible.

If it is inconceivable, it is not logically possible. No possible world can be imagined in which God or anything else can both exist and not exist. No possible world can be imagined in which there is a square circle--the concept of a square circle is contradictory. A square is a square, a circle is a circle. It IS possible to conceive of a world in which the rules of mathematics allow us to square the circle, but it is impossible to do such a thing in THIS world. Logically possible things don't necessarily have to actually exist. It is unnecessary to have an explanation of how or why something COULD be. Logical possibility only requires that the rational mind be able to dream it up.

It is not logically possible for God to contradict Himself. If it were, He wouldn't be God. The question of whether God can create a certain stone is based on a logical impossibility because it violates the logical law of non-contradiction. God in His perfect nature cannot create such a stone any more than water can stop being wet. Moreover, even if we were to suppose God possessed the ability, it is unnecessary to assume that God MUST create that stone. The false premise the question is built upon is a contradiction--you must assume that God doesn't simply have the ability to do it, but that God actually does it. It is the premise that is wrong.


I'm afraid I still don't understand that, but having looked the matter up, I see it's a well-debated matter known by some as the Omnipotence Paradox, and it seems that one of the main defenses is "omnipotence does not mean breaking the laws of logic." So it's a question of the definition of omnipotence, and there are a lot of things that God can't do, some or all of which may be logically absurd. But what about the "with God, all things are possible" quote? In terms of the defense, does "all things" really mean "all things" in the normally-accepted way, i.e. everything? Or should the author have said "all non-absurd things" ? My own view is that whoever wrote or said it got carried away in trying to hammer home the idea that resistance to God is futile, and failed to qualify his assertion, leaving it open to criticism from those who aren't prone to persuasion by exaggeration or appeals to the emotions. I've often thought that sweeping and colourful exaggeration tends to persuade people who don't think much, because it's kind of attractive to the emotions. But if you do think about it much, you might begin to wonder whether the whole notion of omnipotence is absurd. And I strongly suspect that all this playing with words and definitions has nothing much to do with deciding about the existence of the Christian deity. Does philosophical argument ever resolve anything?



ToughDiamond
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,965

14 Apr 2022, 4:21 pm

kitesandtrainsandcats wrote:
Which is why I used the Literal Standard Version translation from the multiple offered on the website the text was copied from.

"Accurately representing" can be a bit of a job at times.
For instance, although I have forgotten their names, and where they might appear in the original texts, Greek has some verb tenses which do not exist in English grammar: what counts as accurate representation of those?

And there are occasional Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, words, phrases, which go further with denotative and/or connotative meaning/significance than their English equivalents: again, what counts as accurate translation of those?

And there are English words which have changed/morphed in meaning and usage since the 1600s when the KJV was was done. They do not alter the gospel but can impact the richness of some accounts and the complete understanding of them.
Today I would have to go look up the specifics but a couple which come to mind are the words meat and bread and fruit, they had different casual usage at that time than the specific way we use them today. For instance, at least one was used as a general term for food in much the way as sometimes Coke is used as a general term for all soda pop.

A classic example is our English word love: understanding that Greek has different individual words for different types of love sheds a whole new light on a classic Bible encounter between the resurrected Jesus and Peter who during the trial before the crucifixion had vehemently denied even knowing Jesus.

From, https://testeverythingblog.com/do-you-l ... 05169b86d7
"
Jesus asks Peter three times “do you love me?” Here is where the limitations of the English language hinder us. There is a dynamic in this conversation— a dance, if you will — where Peter not only moves toward Christ but Christ moves toward Peter.

Our English word love is used for so many things. We use it to describe our most intimate human relationships and how we feel about ice cream! In the original Greek in which John wrote his gospel, there were multiple words for different types of love.

Jesus asks Peter twice “do you love me?” using the Greek word agape, meaning a pure, unselfish, self-giving love. Peter responds by using the word philia, which refers to affection shared between friends. Philia is a wonderful kind of love, but it is less than agape. Agape is universal love; it is what we mean by the virtue of charity.

I was very pleased the first time I proclaimed this gospel in Spanish to discover that the distinction between these two loves is preserved in that language. The Spanish gospel has Jesus asking Peter, ¿me amas? from the word amor meaning “love.” But Peter responds te quiero, which carries the meaning “I love you,” but literally translates as “I want you.” Both express love, but te quiero does so much more casually.

Mindful of the literal meaning of quiere as “to want,” I can imagine Peter’s interior struggle as he considers Jesus’s question. He recognizes now the weakness of his own love. He knows he does not love Jesus with total, self-giving agape. But he wants Jesus. Despite his failures, he still wants Jesus. He wants to love him better than he does.

And that’s enough for Jesus.

Jesus does not reject Peter’s offer of a lesser love. He accepts it. He tells Peter to “feed my sheep.” Despite his inferior love, Christ gives Peter a share in his role as the Good Shepherd, placing the entire flock of the Church into Peter’s care.

And when Jesus asks Peter a third time, “do you love me?” he does not use the word agape. He uses the word philia, which is the love Peter was able to offer. He takes Peter’s offering of a lesser love and he magnifies it. He elevates it to a love that would lead Peter to the cross, the ultimate agape sacrifice of Christ. He elevates Peter’s philia into a love that would glorify God.
"

Indeed, the entire meaning of the text can turn on a word or phrase. It can be very interesting to look at the original words and I'd love to track down which versions had fudged the translation, though to do that for the entire Bible would probably take more than a lifetime. See my next post for a very modest start I've made in finding out more about the passage in question here.



kitesandtrainsandcats
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2016
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,322
Location: Missouri

14 Apr 2022, 5:19 pm

cubedemon6073 wrote:
Let's assume an entity x exists and has no contradictions and it is eternal. No beginning or end.
Then the possibility should exist that you or other Christians should be able to construct a model of this entity x and why this model would hold up without having any contradictions within the model.


I would say that a legitimate model of an eternal entity X would itself be required to be eternal & since we humans in this world are not eternal we can not construct an eternal model. The non-eternal model of the eternal entity x would in and of itself be a contradiction.

Quote:
But what about the "with God, all things are possible" quote?


Therein lies a problem with how western thinking treats the scripture after it was given numbered verses: it appears the western mind likes to treat those numbered verses as discreet standalone entities.
They are not.
The verses exist within a flow, within that all-important world-famous thing known as context.

For an illustration, a popular verse to quote out of context, Philippians 4:13
this from the King James
"I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me."

All things?

Which "all things"?
Literally ALL things?
All things you can imagine?

"All" things, even fanciful absurd illogical things you can imagine?
Such as "I can launch myself to orbital velocity merely by pushing my tongue hard against the floor through Christ which strengthens me."?

No.

It refers to the things immediately preceding it,
"
11 I do not say that in respect of want, for I learned in the things in which I am—to be content; 12 I have known both to be abased, and I have known to abound; in everything and in all things I have been initiated, both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to be in want. 13 I have strength for all things, in Christ’s strengthening me;"
"

A translation named the Amplified Bible uses additional English in brackets and parenthesis to provide better understanding within the English language.

It presents verse 13 as,
"
I can do all things [which He has called me to do] through Him who strengthens and empowers me [to fulfill His purpose—I am self-sufficient in Christ’s sufficiency; I am ready for anything and equal to anything through Him who infuses me with inner strength and confident peace.]
"
To me at least, that understanding makes logical, rational, reasonable, sense.
He will strengthen and empower you to do what he has called you to do for him.
And
it is understood that
he will NOT strengthen and empower you to do what he has Not called you to do, or has forbidden you to do;
you'll have to use your own strength for that.

The Israelites learned that the hard way a few times in the Old Testament.
I forget exactly where it is but at least once they went out to have a battle that God did not direct them to, and they lost big time.
And they came back, asked why they lost, and God told them exactly why; putting it in the "my personal paraphrase version", "What, you really think I'm going to empower and strengthen you to do the opposite of my will? Umm, NO."


_________________
"There are a thousand things that can happen when you go light a rocket engine, and only one of them is good."
Tom Mueller of SpaceX, in Air and Space, Jan. 2011


ToughDiamond
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,965

14 Apr 2022, 5:39 pm

Literal Standard Version:
23 and he, having heard these things, became very sorrowful, for he was exceedingly rich.
24 And Jesus having seen him become very sorrowful, said, “How hardly will those having riches enter into the Kingdom of God!
25 For it is easier for a camel to enter through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God.”
26 And those who heard, said, “And who is able to be saved?”


I looked at all the other versions I could find on Bible Gateway, and yours is crucially different from all of them in two respects:
Verse 24: The rich man in your version doesn't walk away.
Verse 26: In your version the word "then" is missing, nor are those who heard it "astonished" or even surprised, which rather moves the emphasis away from the preceding statement about rich men.

So the wording of all but one version (the one you cited) contain the oddity that I first pointed out, i.e. that the disciples' (or other listeners') direct response to Jesus saying that a rich man can't get his ticket to the Good Place is one of unfounded puzzlement and the bizarre question: "(if a rich man isn't good enough) then who the heck is?"

https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew%2019:22
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew%2019:23
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew%2019:24
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew%2019:25
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew%2019:26

So, how come that howling error survived the centuries unnoticed in what were until recently the only versions around? Could it be that people had no problem with it because they revered rich men so much that they thought they deserved a ticket to paradise?

There's still the question of which version is closest to the original - the Literal Standard Version, or the others. Maybe the passage is short enough to make it a reasonably straightforward task to find out? My problem is that I don't know where to find the original text and I don't know Greek. Apparently the author was probably not Matthew the disciple, but a male Jew who wrote in "a polished, semitic Synagogue Greek." The earliest known intact version is in the Codex Sinaiticus, written some time after 325 AD, and apparently containing some "unusually serious mistakes."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus

All of which suggests to me that the New Testament as we have it today can't be taken as the complete, absolute, literal truth, however hard we try to find a definitive version, because the original no longer exists except as a few fragments.



kitesandtrainsandcats
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2016
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,322
Location: Missouri

14 Apr 2022, 6:05 pm

ToughDiamond wrote:
to Jesus saying that a rich man can't get his ticket to the Good Place

Jesus didn't say can't, he said it is hard to.

It is not specifically richness, wealthiness, which is the issue, but heart and spirit attitudes which so often accompany wealth; attitudes not inclined toward having a humble and trusting spirit.

Obviously rich people can gain eternity with God,
Abram, whose name God changed to Abraham as written in Genesis, the founder of what are called the Abrahamic Religions, was not only rich but is described as being very rich, exceedingly wealthy, depending on exact wording.
https://biblehub.com/genesis/13-2.htm

And because Abraham believed God, that faith was credited to him as righteousness,
https://biblehub.com/genesis/15-6.htm


In the New Testament book Acts there are even a few wealthy women who became believers in Christ and assisted the Apostles and the church generally.

Lydia for example, if one is selling luxury textiles it would follow that engaging in that commerce requires some level of wealth,
https://www.learnreligions.com/lydia-in ... le-4150413
"
Accomplishments of Lydia in the Bible

Lydia ran a successful business selling a luxury product: purple cloth. This was a unique achievement for a woman during the male-dominated Roman empire. More importantly, though, she believed in Jesus Christ as Savior, was baptized and had her entire household baptized too. When she took Paul, Silas, Timothy, and Luke into her house, she created one of the first home churches in Europe.

Lydia's Strengths

Lydia was intelligent, perceptive, and assertive to compete in business. Her faithful pursuit of God as a Jew caused the Holy Spirit to make her receptive to Paul's message of the gospel. She was generous and hospitable, opening her home to traveling ministers and missionaries.

Life Lessons From Lydia

Lydia's story shows God works through people by opening their hearts to help them believe the good news. Salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ through grace and cannot be earned by human works. As Paul explained who Jesus was and why he had to die for the sin of the world, Lydia showed a humble, trusting spirit. Further, she was baptized and brought salvation to her entire household, an early example of how to win the souls of those closest to us.

Lydia also credited God with her earthly blessings and was quick to share them with Paul and his friends. Her example of stewardship shows we cannot pay God back for our salvation, but we do have an obligation to support the church and its missionary efforts. "

Here is the account of that,
https://biblehub.com/lsv/luke/12.htm
"
11Therefore, sailing from Troas, we ran a straight course to Samothrace, and the next day came to Neapolis, 12and from there to Philippi, which is the [c]foremost city of that part of Macedonia, a colony. And we were staying in that city for some days. 13And on the Sabbath day we went out of the city to the riverside, where prayer was customarily made; and we sat down and spoke to the women who met there. 14Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. 15And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us.
"


_________________
"There are a thousand things that can happen when you go light a rocket engine, and only one of them is good."
Tom Mueller of SpaceX, in Air and Space, Jan. 2011


Last edited by kitesandtrainsandcats on 14 Apr 2022, 6:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.