Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
The Forum - Debate Religion
>
If Christianity was true...
date
newest »
newest »
Sorry, David - let me just answer Peter's question then I'll get back in line. Reason would be any of the cognitive brain functions specifically reserved for humans which elevate us from the brutes.
I don't think we can separate Who Jesus Said He Was from - Who the Bible Says He IS. Although many scholars do just that. Every liberal and Muslim scholar I come across.Does Jesus have to officially declare himself God? Or is it enough that the Bible clearly, as a whole, declares Jesus to be God?
God made this a somewhat complicated and confusing issue for a reason: Acts 28
they departed after Paul had made one statement: “The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your fathers through Isaiah the prophet:
26 “‘Go to this people, and say,
“You will indeed hear but never understand,
and you will indeed see but never perceive.”
27 For this people's heart has grown dull,
and with their ears they can barely hear,
and their eyes they have closed;
lest they should see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their heart
and turn, and I would heal them.’
Of course we can separate them if we want to, Rod. And of course historical Jesus scholars do just that. It's their job, duh.Should David then change his question to "If you are convinced Jesus is who the Bible says he is, will you become a disciple?" Is that more precise, and is that the question that matters?
Just because people are convinced doesn't mean they desire what is proven in front of them.I have carefully explained the Jesus of the Bible to many people - they understand it but some of them just don't want what Jesus has to offer.
Robert wrote: "Sorry, David - let me just answer Peter's question then I'll get back in line. Reason would be any of the cognitive brain functions specifically reserved for humans which elevate us from the brutes."Thanks Robert, that definition is pretty close to what I would have said. Let me think about your original post in light of that definition.
Lee wrote:I'm guessing Robert refers to Paul.
The problem, Lee, is that he's not referring to anything I wrote. He's freaking out, and reciting an insane version of the gospel -- Paul never said that "reason" was the cause of sin, though he did say that it was not the cure for it in I Corin 2 -- but it's all in vain, since I said nothing even remotely like what he's objecting to.
All I said was that human reason is rooted outside of nature. If he wanted to see the argument supporting that (which, of course, is the last thing in the universe a guy like Robert wants to see) he could pick up a copy of CS Lewis' book "Miracles," where that topic takes up the first few chapters. I said absolutely nothing about sin or redemption, and I said nothing even remotely like "Human reason is what enables us to live forever."
Robert has never understood a single thing I've written, though he thinks he does. And I've tried to explain his errors to him, but he's not interested in reason. So I've given up on him. But I am praying that God cures whatever it is that has his thinking so badly scrambled.
Lee wrote:I'm guessing Robert refers to Paul.
The problem, Lee, is that he's not referring to anything I wrote. He's freaking out, and reciting an insane version of the gospel -- Paul never said that "reason" was the cause of sin, though he did say that it was not the cure for it in I Corin 2 -- but it's all in vain, since I said nothing even remotely like what he's objecting to.
All I said was that human reason is rooted outside of nature. If he wanted to see the argument supporting that (which, of course, is the last thing in the universe a guy like Robert wants to see) he could pick up a copy of CS Lewis' book "Miracles," where that topic takes up the first few chapters. If he were bright enough, he might have decided that I wasn't so bad after all, since reason could not have evolved naturally if it's rooted outside of nature. I said absolutely nothing about sin or redemption, and I said nothing even remotely like "Human reason is what enables us to live forever."
Robert has never understood a single thing I've written, though he thinks he does. And I've tried to explain his errors to him, but he's not interested in reason. So I've given up on him. But I am praying that God cures whatever it is that has his thinking so badly scrambled.
The unspoken question for me is, who did Jesus say he was? We know, for example, that he favored the phrase "son of man," so we argue about what that meant in the first century. And on and on it goes.