Evidence for God from Science

Canuckster1127 wrote:J. Davis,

I'm generally pretty good at picking up tone and inference and I will take your word for it that this was intended as "banter." I don't believe a reasonable person reading it would pick it up as such, and given the depth of the comments it really surprised me and felt like a personal attack. I don't see at all how you get that response from what you cite from me as being of the same nature.

Canuckster1127 wrote:I'm not attempting to provide you with a 100% clear position on the passage so maybe that helps to clear things up.

Bart , this did not have a dual meaning? What was the wink for? Either you are saying that you were not attempting to provide me with something I don’t have (the 100% true position). Or you are saying that you are not trying for one reason or another, which would be somewhat childish and not like your character at all, also a bit disrespectful. The wink normally means an exchange of banter..

I felt it was most likely (considering your online character) that the first line of reasoning was accurate. But both lines of reasoning are possible.

But as I said, I did not mean to truly offend you.

Canuckster1127 wrote:I sincerely wasn't trying to give a Theological Paper and discourse and further, as I went on to explain in the large portion of text that you passed over following this, my point was too that presenting an air-tight logical presentation for the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union or the Kenotic elements of the Phil 2:5-11 passage is impossible given the mystery that surrounds these issues and our limited ability to comprehend them at that level.

I take what I post seriously as well. I also stand by what I've posted as relevant to the conversation and exegetical to the text.

bart

I respect that you hold that position concerning the rest of this (I did not Pass over your text..lol).

It was also fun Bart (the discussion) thanks.

Explanation accepted. Let's move on and leave this.

Written language is easy at times to misunderstand. I try to use emoticons to clarify the tone of what I'm saying. It appears that in this case it caused confusion rather than adding clarity.

I don't know how to make my position any clearer that what I wrote. Of the New Testament, this passage from Phil and the Kingdom Parables of Matt 13 are the ones I have studied and sought to understand the most since my days in College and work in New Testament exegesis. Strong familiarity with that can sometime lead to using terms and jumping from concept to concept in a manner than others won't readily see. Too, I've modfied my understanding on many of these elements over the years. Lately, I seem to be factoring in more and more the concept of Perichoresis which I believe unfortunately disappeared effectively within the Western Church although it continued and remained strong in the Eastern Orthodox tradition.

So anyway, again, yes your response did come across differently than what you describe as your intent. I accept your explanation and as far as I'm concerned the matter is concluded and we move on.

Don't consider this an end to the discussion if you wish to go on with it. Again, I don't mind being disagreed with at all. It's part of the process of back and forth and learning and I don't consider myself "the" authority on any of this.

I understand the appeal to Jesus Deity by means of the miracles you note. It may surprise you, but I don't think those demonstrate His deity primarily. I believe Jesus set those powers aside and operated in His earthly ministry in terms of His Humanity as a man like us in every regards, except without sin (speaking collectively) relying upon God's leading and the Holy Spirit. Miracles in the eyes of Jewish observers served to validate a person as a Prophet or Messenger of God, not as Deity. It was the declarations of Jesus claiming to be God that established that claim and which were the basis of his rejection by the Jewish Leadership of His day. Of course I believe the Deity of Christ. I simply don't tie His miracles to that Deity directly.

There are many elements of the New Testament that make this difficult to understand and at times to be self-contradictory and I attribute that in most cases to the context of the point being made and our extending those metaphors or points beyond the context of the immediate inten of the passage (which is in my opinion, the fundamental weakness of Systematic Theology and why Systematics must be rooted first in contextual Biblical Theology before attempting to extrapolate or build logical arguments which result in conclusions that cannot be found in and of themselves directly in Scripture.

Canuckster1127 wrote:I accept your explanation and as far as I'm concerned the matter is concluded and we move on.

Agreed, the matter is closed on my end as well.

Canuckster1127 wrote:I understand the appeal to Jesus Deity by means of the miracles you note. It may surprise you, but I don't think those demonstrate His deity primarily. I believe Jesus set those powers aside and operated in His earthly ministry in terms of His Humanity as a man like us in every regards, except without sin (speaking collectively) relying upon God's leading and the Holy Spirit. Miracles in the eyes of Jewish observers served to validate a person as a Prophet or Messenger of God, not as Deity. It was the declarations of Jesus claiming to be God that established that claim and which were the basis of his rejection by the Jewish Leadership of His day. Of course I believe the Deity of Christ. I simply don't tie His miracles to that Deity directly.

I agree with this and considered it before I posted what I said. As you say, I do not feel His miracles provided exclusive proof that He was God nor do I think He intended for His miracles to be exclusive proof of His Deity. But I do believe that His miracles were real (where many were fake) and I do believe that His miracles surpassed that of the average Joe (or Prophet) and many times by an exceedingly great margin. There is not much mention of others doing many of the things Jesus did (at least in the bible) and there is enough biblical proof to conclude that His miracles were not the norm. Also, there is the one major miracle of raising Himself from the dead, which no one but the true God could pull off. Jesus claiming to be God (even though He knew He would be killed for it) would not have been solid enough proof (anyone can do that, I believe Jesus considered the future as well.). He had to do something to separate Himself from all the fakes in the world and indeed there were many false gods in His time. But as you say, I do believe it was a mix of the things He did on earth. It’s worth mentioning though….. Also, many can be deceived by false (not from God) miracles (that’s part of the reason they can not be exclusive proof in many cases), but a child should know it’s parent (creator/God). A true relationship with Jesus provides the best proof.

Canuckster1127 wrote:There are many elements of the New Testament that make this difficult to understand and at times to be self-contradictory and I attribute that in most cases to the context of the point being made and our extending those metaphors or points beyond the context of the immediate inten of the passage (which is in my opinion, the fundamental weakness of Systematic Theology and why Systematics must be rooted first in contextual Biblical Theology before attempting to extrapolate or build logical arguments which result in conclusions that cannot be found in and of themselves directly in Scripture.

Yes, as I‘m sure you know, the bible is best interpreted using one’s heart (Jesus’ moral code, feelings and character...These things lead to thinking like Him, but one needs to become like Jesus first, by doing the things Jesus said was good to do in the bible). Many try to use logic alone, but for many passages, it will not work. Each passage has a God approved moral stance (right or wrong) and there are feelings attached to the scriptures as well. If one can not grasp God’s moral stance and feelings concerning a biblical matter then they will most often miss what God intended. That is mainly why the unsaved feel that much of the bible is ridiculous, they do not have a character that is close to Jesus. On top of that one needs to understand the poetic style of the bible, as you said, proper understanding of metaphors and an understanding of the somewhat reverse style of talking in the bible. Even the saved can miss it sometimes and some scriptures can be out of our grasp because we need to get closer to Jesus to understand them. I’m a little disappointed at the way some bibles translate the word of God, but we have several bibles to choose from and with the internet we can look at all of them, pretty cool.