In your view was Jesus a human or God or both ?

Post Reply New Topic

Molinism is a view of divine foreknowlege. It allows for foreknowlege and free will, through God knowing counter factual truths. So in any given situation God would know how one would act, this knowlege, is not yet decided, just known. It is kind of halfway between Calvinism and open theism.

Interesting. Molinism sounds a bit like Arminianism.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

A reasonable person would not be justified in questioning the existence of my father if he were standing in front of her.

However, a reasonable person would be quite justified in questioning the existence of my all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good, insensible heavenly father.

The starting point,belief in God,requires more than mere reason.

Well, you know, because you don't think it's reasonable to.
If you let go of reason in order to believe in Christ, out of reverence -- still, how did you decide to reverence that particular thing (belief in Christ) in that unique way (turning off your intellect)?
My point is, one can aim one's childlike trust in literally any direction. There is no qualification for your target of trust to make even the slightest sense if you're going to suspend all reasoning to accept it.
What I mean is, even picking a target for blind trust takes some reasoning to do. And that reasoning means that it isn't 100% blind trust, as you say.
Jesus never said to close your eyes and follow him. Do we yield to God's expressed will anytime it conflicts with ours? Yes. But will using the brain He designed for us enhance or hamper our relationship with Him? Logically, it will enhance it. Blind faith simply is not taught in the Bible. Even when God called Abraham to leave his home of Ur to create a new people, Abraham didn't need 100% faith to do that -- after all, he did hear the voice of God -- which is evidence. Sure, he still trusted probably well over 90%, but part of the formula was God actively leading him and commanding him -- a powerful voice from an apparently-superior being -- which allowed him to weigh and reason whether or not to follow God.
AND, Scripture then says that "Abraham's faith was counted to him as righteousness", and Abraham was greatly blessed for his faith -- the very faith which WAS NOT stand-alone faith.

Even when God called Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, Abraham knew that the command was coming from a thus-far trustworthy source. So, again, NOT 100% stand-alone faith.

I suppose you could say the "voice I heard" was my upbringing in my family's church. I was raised a Christian, was taught the faith by my parents and pastor, and went through confirmation.
But was it a choice on my part? From a human perspective, it undoubtedly would seem so. But if you're familiar with Lutheran theology, you'll recognize that we believe that as human beings, we can not come to Christ by our own reason or power, as we are by our very natures enemies of God. Rather, it's entirely the work of the Holy spirit, by the Means of Grace, which are the written and spoken Word, and the sacraments (baptism and communion), which are physical manifestations of the word. So no, I don't believe I had come to faith by means of reason.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Didn't that goniff Paul of Tarsus have something to say about letting go of childish things. If you are a grownup why reason as children are assumed to reason. Part of growing up is embracing the facts and giving up fairly tales and invisible friends.

Cousin Joshua said something that began as : "Unless ye be as children. ....." That is the clue.

ruveyn

We're on the same page, really. I do believe we are powerless to come to Christ without Him acting to bring us to Himself. It's like it is in the movie "Amazing Grace". Wilberforce is asked, "Have you found God?" After much silent thought, he responds, "Rather, I think that He found me." We are simply that puny, too puny to find such a great mystery of the universe by our sinful selves. Indeed, as you imply, we are, in our natural state, occupied with sinning -- with exalting and gratifying the self -- and such self-devotion never leads to truth, but rather only to greater and greater lies to justify our sins, rather than properly deal with them.

But where we may differ, Bill, is that I believe that the more one studies the historical evidence surrounding the supposed resurrection of Jesus, the more evidence one finds supporting this biblical claim -- thus, automatically, the less faith is required to believe that it happened.

(If atheists can believe that undirected, infinitely chaotic forces billions of years ago brought about our present existence from nothing, and then can call it "undeniable fact", then I can believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead a historically-recorded mere 2,000 years ago. The latter is a much more rational thing to believe in, even before further evidence is considered.)

And, as Paul wrote, the entire Christian faith hinges upon His physical, actual resurrection. I do not think God took pains to hide all evidence of His resurrection. You may believe that -- I'm not sure. There is powerful evidence, such as His apostles doubting His prophetic claims during His life on Earth to an eventual resurrection -- yet then, after His death, these same formerly-doubting apostles were willing to give up their very lives rather than simply say He did not rise from the dead. Mass hallucination, or belief based on sight and physical presence with Jesus after His obvious death?

Last edited by Ragtime on 26 Nov 2011, 11:51 am, edited 5 times in total.

What evidence is there of his resurrection? Did the Romans happen to use their iPhones to take videos?

You're right. There are no known historical facts before the invention of photography. No eye-witness accounts, no highly-indicative documented historical turns of events. I guess historians are just fiction authors. The evidence for evolution billions of years ago is much more reliable than for things which happened 2,000 years ago, when humans were actively recording history through their extensive writings. What sense does that make?

there are plenty of writings backing up the historical record. Unfortunately, outside of your Bible, there is nothing to support Jesus' resurrection. One source is not enough, besides the fact that resurrection is impossible. And as for evolution, there are fossils, soil strata layers... not that you'd care

Can you guess that I disagree with all of your post? Just saying there is no evidence for the resurrection (after I provided clear evidence) doesn't make it so.

No physical evidence exists and all there is are some stories told and retold through the centuries.

There is no evidences the Cousin Joshua was crucified by the Romans either, although there is plenty of evidence that the Romans practiced this gruesome form of execution.

ruveyn

Well, there is the Shroud of Turin, the cause of which radiation-drawn human shape no scientific minds have yet been able to explain, nor the very time-and-place-specific pollen found in the fabric's fibers which show it contemporary to Jesus' biblically-purported lifetime and geographical home. I do not know whether the shroud is from Jesus, but it is physical evidence pointing -- with whatever level of strength or weakness -- to His resurrection. Again -- not proving, but pointing to, as any evidence does.

To quote Christ, "Blessed are those who do not see, but believe."
Again, I believe my faith was a gift of the Spirit, which to me and my religious tradition, reason doesn't come into it.
And in my humble opinion, the Shroud of Turin is a hoax. Then again, we Lutherans haven't been big on relics since Luther wrote against their validity.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

http://www.skepdic.com/shroud.html