MoKJanuary 15, 2025 at 18:345750 views203 comments
He said on the Cross: "My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?". How could He be abandoned if He and God are one?
Comments (203)
Arcane SandwichJanuary 15, 2025 at 18:54#9608470 likes
Reply to MoK Because he has abandoned himself, and he wants to know why. He is asking himself that question. In the philosophical literature, this is known as the death of God. Hegel, among other philosophers, had already pointed out this issue, before Nietzsche and before Zizek discussed it.
Reply to MoK Heaps of interpretations for this. The one I was taught was he was quoting from Psalm 22.
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from my cries of anguish?
It's just another element in the stories writers introduced to demonstrate prophecy and continuity with the tradition (Kind David's suffering) but many Christians often believe that the Psalm itself references Jesus.
I find the story where Satan attempts to tempts Jesus stranger than the above.
the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 All this I will give you, he said, if you will bow down and worship me.
Matthew 4:8
If Jesus is God, then what's he going to do with material wealth? Surely even less effective than trying to temp Elon Musk with a dollar bill. I guess one might need to contrive an allegorical interpretation that transcends literalism for this one to work.
Arcane SandwichJanuary 15, 2025 at 19:29#9608580 likes
If Jesus was a man in addition to being God, why wouldn't it be the case that he has got something to do with material wealth?
I don't think that works. The God part will provide.
But is it really worth our time analysing an entire myth like this when thousands, perhaps millions have come before us? I was just adding what I was taught and what struck me personally as odd.
Arcane SandwichJanuary 15, 2025 at 19:37#9608640 likes
Reply to MoK I don't know, but maybe this: God wants to know what it's like to be not-God, so he becomes a finite being in time and then abandons himself. Starts the car, puts it in gear and then jumps out of the car, so to speak, and watches it crash.
Metaphysician UndercoverJanuary 15, 2025 at 21:19#9609210 likes
Reply to MoK
If I remember correctly, he was supposed to be given vinegar to drink, when he was on the cross. Someone gave him water instead, and that pissed him off. So it was really his people that he felt were abandoning him.
Arcane SandwichJanuary 15, 2025 at 21:27#9609230 likes
Reply to Tom Storm If we're gonna share the oddest Bible ideas, or the ones that each of us has found to be the oddest, then I have a ton of questions about Adam and Eve. But I'll just tell you instead the craziest interpretation that I've ever heard.
I actually saw, on social media (I think it was Facebook?) someone explain Adam and Eve from a "rational" point of view. This person on Facebook said, that a very long time ago, there were dinosaurs here on Earth. God created them. And then, a meteorite killed the dinosaurs. And who do you think was in that meteor? That's right, Adam and Eve. Because the meteor was actually a space ship. And, here on planet Earth, there was no metal prior to the crashing of Adam and Eve's "meteor". So where do you think that all of the metal comes from? It's from the meteorite, from the spaceship.
Please understand that I do not believe in the above explanation, for reasons that should be obvious.
EDIT: @Count Timothy von Icarus this is what happens when everything is interpretation and nothing is canon.
Reply to Arcane Sandwich That's funny. There don't appear to be any limits on interpretation and believers will make things fit and create frantic workarounds to ensure that they can retain specific doctrines and beliefs; Christians, Muslims, Marxists, Republicans all do it.
I have a friend who is a Catholic priest. I prefer his take. He sees the Bible as a series of myths and legends that are antiquity's method for pointing at the transcendent. My favourite quote of his, "Of course it didn't happen.'
He said on the Cross: "My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?". How could He be abandoned if He and God are one?
The interpretation that makes the most sense to me, is that this is where Jesus was utterly and entirely human. He was one of us, or indeed, all of us, at that point. No faith, no hope, no consolation, utterly bereft and desolate. This is why this agonised exclamation is described in terms of kenosis, self-emptying. Remember, 'he who saves his life will lose it, and he who looses his life for My sake will be saved.' To learn more about kenosis, google it.
I have a friend who is a Catholic priest. I prefer his take. He sees the Bible as a series of myths and legends that are antiquity's method for pointing at the transcendent. My favourite quote of his, "Of course it didn't happen.'
That's the wisest Catholic take on the Bible that I've ever heard.
Arcane SandwichJanuary 15, 2025 at 21:50#9609290 likes
The interpretation that makes the most sense to me, is that this is where Jesus was utterly and entirely human. He was one of us, or indeed, all of us, at that point. No faith, no hope, no consolation, utterly bereft and desolate. This is why this agonised exclamation is described in terms of kenosis, self-emptying. Remember, 'he who saves his life will lose it, and he who looses his life for My sake will be saved.' To learn more about kenosis, google it.
My favourite quote of his, "Of course it didn't happen.' Tom Storm
'There are myths that are truer than history'
Which leads to a very boring discussion the Philosophy of Language which basically boils down to "Wittgensteinians vs non-Wittgensteinians". And I just think that it's a reductionist conversation to even have. Wittgenstein died like, what, almost a century ago?
Reply to Arcane Sandwich Not necessarily - it can also lead to hermeneutics, the art of interpretation of texts, often ancient texts, including Biblical texts. Much more characteristic of European philosophy, and not something I'm knowledgable in, though always keen to learn more.
Not necessarily - it can also lead to hermeneutics, the art of interpretation of texts, often ancient texts, including Biblical texts. Much more characteristic of European philosophy, and not something I'm knowledgable in, though always keen to learn more.
That's a lot more fun than Wittgenstein, unless you read his Tractatus in that exact sense. Then it gets really crazy.
I imagine that the audiovisual material for that activity would be something like this:
(Incidentally, I learned something interesting about Wittgenstein in this essay Wittgenstein,Tolstoy and the Folly of Logical Positivism.)
I see Logical Positivism as the thing that existed before Scientism. It's like, you have classical Comtean positivism, then logical positivism, then scientism. That's my take on that.
Jesus is praying Psalm 22, invoking it by its first lines.
Ok, then let's quote it, for ease of reference:
Psalm 22:Psalm 22
Why Have You Forsaken Me?
To the choirmaster: according to The Doe of the Dawn. A Psalm of David.
1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning?
2 O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer,
and by night, but I find no rest.
3 Yet you are holy,
enthroned on the praises[a] of Israel.
4 In you our fathers trusted;
they trusted, and you delivered them.
5 To you they cried and were rescued;
in you they trusted and were not put to shame.
6 But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by mankind and despised by the people.
7 All who see me mock me;
they make mouths at me; they wag their heads;
8 He trusts in the Lord; let him deliver him;
let him rescue him, for he delights in him!
EDIT: And here's the rest of the psalm:
Psalm 22:9 Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you, even at my mothers breast.
10 From birth I was cast on you; from my mothers womb you have been my God.
11 Do not be far from me, for trouble is near and there is no one to help.
12 Many bulls surround me; strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.
13 Roaring lions that tear their prey open their mouths wide against me.
14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint. My heart has turned to wax; it has melted within me.
15 My mouth is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth; you lay me in the dust of death.
16 Dogs surround me, a pack of villains encircles me; they pierce my hands and my feet.
17 All my bones are on display; people stare and gloat over me.
18 They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment.
19 But you, LORD, do not be far from me. You are my strength; come quickly to help me.
20 Deliver me from the sword, my precious life from the power of the dogs.
21 Rescue me from the mouth of the lions; save me from the horns of the wild oxen.
22 I will declare your name to my people; in the assembly I will praise you.
23 You who fear the LORD, praise him! All you descendants of Jacob, honor him! Revere him, all you descendants of Israel!
24 For he has not despised or scorned the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help.
25 From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly; before those who fear you I will fulfill my vows.
26 The poor will eat and be satisfied; those who seek the LORD will praise him may your hearts live forever!
27 All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the LORD, and all the families of the nations will bow down before him,
28 for dominion belongs to the LORD and he rules over the nations.
29 All the rich of the earth will feast and worship; all who go down to the dust will kneel before him those who cannot keep themselves alive.
30 Posterity will serve him; future generations will be told about the Lord.
31 They will proclaim his righteousness, declaring to a people yet unborn: He has done it!
EDIT 2: And here is one of my points: Nothing that Psalm 22 says is incompatible with Rastafari. And here is the audiovisual evidence for that claim:
In the philosophical literature, this is known as the death of God. Hegel, among other philosophers, had already pointed out this issue, before Nietzsche and before Zizek discussed it.
Oh, I didn't know that philosophers had pointed out this issue in the past.
If Jesus is God, then what's he going to do with material wealth? Surely even less effective than trying to temp Elon Musk with a dollar bill. I guess one might need to contrive an allegorical interpretation that transcends literalism for this one to work.
People do that when some verse in scripture does not make sense!
The interpretation that makes the most sense to me, is that this is where Jesus was utterly and entirely human. He was one of us, or indeed, all of us, at that point. No faith, no hope, no consolation, utterly bereft and desolate.
That is against John 14:10: Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?
This is why this agonised exclamation is described in terms of kenosis, self-emptying. Remember, 'he who saves his life will lose it, and he who looses his life for My sake will be saved.'
Even if we accept that interpretation then we still have a problem with why He asked: "Why?". He should have known why He emptied Himself of Divine Power.
Fair enough - Haile Selassie is revered as a messianic figure, often regarded as the second coming of Christ or the incarnation of God (Jah).
I read somewhere that when there was news in Jamaica that Haile Selassie had died, some Rastas said that was false, because Haile Selassie is God, and God cannot die.
Arcane SandwichJanuary 16, 2025 at 16:53#9611160 likes
What do you mean by He abandoned himself? He is God so He should know why He has to suffer and die on the Cross. Shouldn't He?
Not if he underwent kenosis during crucifixion, as Reply to Wayfarer pointed out earlier in this conversation. By becoming entirely human, Jesus lost all of his divine powers. As such, he asks himself why he did that: why did he undergo kenosis at the cross? He doesn't have God's answer, precisely because he underwent kenosis: God's answer is not available to someone in a state of complete kenosis, no matter if that person is (was) God.
Oh, I didn't know that philosophers had pointed out this issue in the past.
Yup, it's been analyzed from different philosophical frameworks. Nietzsche has the weirdest take on it, it's even weirder than Hegel's take. Fun fact: did you know that Nietzsche himself used to sign his letters as "The Crucified" at the end of his life? Of course, he was mad with syphilis by that point, and he died in a mental hospital, but still.
EDIT: I don't know what the Rastafari answer to this topic is. I should look it up. It probably has something to do with Haile Selassie.
EDIT 2: Can we just agree that Reply to Iron, Lion, Zion is an amazing song? Probably one of the best songs ever made.
Arcane SandwichJanuary 16, 2025 at 17:20#9611190 likes
Reply to Tom Storm I think that we, non-Rasta folks exchanging ideas on an internet Forum, can barely catch a glimpse (if at all) of what Haile Selassie meant to the Jamaican Rasta circa the early 1970's. It wasn't just politics. There was a strong political element there, sure. But Rastafari is a religion. And it involves the ritual consumption of tetrahydrocannabinol, which is a psychoactive drug. In other words, Rastas smoke weed for religious reasons, literally. Now imagine that during a ritual smoking of weed, in that context and in those circumstances, Rastas have a religious experience, as if it were a divine revelation, that Haile Selassie, Emperor of Ethiopia, is indeed the Second Incarnation of Christ, the Lion of Judah, who will unify all the peoples of Africa and all of the peoples of the African diaspora.
Who are we to say that their religious experience is somehow less religious than the religious experiences of Protestants or Catholics, for example?
Not if he underwent kenosis during crucifixion, as ?Wayfarer pointed out earlier in this conversation. By becoming entirely human, Jesus lost all of his divine powers. As such, he asks himself why he did that: why did he undergo kenosis at the cross? He doesn't have God's answer, precisely because he underwent kenosis: God's answer is not available to someone in a state of complete kenosis, no matter if that person is (was) God.
But elsewhere He mentioned in John 14:11: Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me. He is saying that Father and Him are identical.
Arcane SandwichJanuary 16, 2025 at 17:34#9611230 likes
But elsewhere He mentioned in John 14:11: Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me. He is saying that Father and Him are identical.
Sure, but when Jesus undergoes kenosis during crucifixion, he ceases to be identical to the Father.
The New Testament does not use the noun form kén?sis, but the verb form kenó? occurs five times (Romans 4:14; 1 Corinthians 1:17, 9:15; 2 Corinthians 9:3; Philippians 2:7) and the future form ken?sei once.[a] Of these five times, Philippians 2:7 is generally considered the most significant for the Christian idea of kenosis:
Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself (eken?sen heauton), taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of deatheven death on a cross. Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name...
?Philippians 2:5-9 (NRSV)[5]
Reply to Arcane Sandwich
Malachi 3:6 I am the Lord, I change not..., 1 Samuel 15:29: God is unchanging, Isaiah 46:9-11: God is unchanging, and Ezekiel 24:14: God is unchanging.
Arcane SandwichJanuary 16, 2025 at 18:35#9611420 likes
Malachi 3:6 I am the Lord, I change not..., 1 Samuel 15:29: God is unchanging, Isaiah 46:9-11: God is unchanging, and Ezekiel 24:14: God is unchanging.
Ok. Counter-point: Jesus walked. Not just on water, mind you, he walked just like you and me walk. To walk is to change one's location. Therefore, to walk is to change. So, whatever is meant in the biblical references that you mentioned, it must be a philosophical concept of change, not an ordinary one. In that sense, kenosis is not like walking from here to there, it's not an ordinary change, but an extra-ordinary change. So, kenosis is compatible with the biblical references that you mentioned.
Yes, so man is not God. As it is written: "God is not a man" (Num. 23:19). Movement implies imperfection.
Kenosis is the process of become less divine, to the point of not being divine at all. If the divine is perfect and humanity is imperfect, then kenosis is a movement from perfection to imperfection. Would like to make a point now, @BitconnectCarlos, or would you like to keep pointing out the obvious instead?
Who are we to say that their religious experience is somehow less religious than the religious experiences of Protestants or Catholics, for example?
That's true. But as an atheist I wouldn't differentiate much between any religious experiences, so there is that. I think other religious folk are probably more likely to divide experiences into the genuine and not genuine. A devout Muslim once told me that any religious experiences had through Eastern religious traditions were false. I spoke to a Methodist once who told me that all religious experiences were simply histrionic expressions of mental ill health. If you are looking for the disenchanted and dour, speak to a Methodist. :wink:
That's true. But as an atheist I wouldn't differentiate much between any religious experiences, so there is that.
I'm an atheist as well, but I did go to a Catholic school for a few years, so there's that? I don't know, I think these political-religious discussions are a bit more complex than what mainstream atheism would have us believe, right?
A devout Muslim once told me that any religious experiences had through Eastern religious traditions were false.
That's an odd thing to say, given that Islam is an Eastern religion. So is Christianity for that matter. Christianity isn't Western. It's Eastern, because it's from the Middle East. I mean, this isn't rocket science, it's just some basic words from ordinary language.
I spoke to a Methodist once who told me that all religious experiences were simply histrionic expressions of mental ill health.
Is that also the case if it's a drug-induced experience involving hallucinations, for example? Because that's what Rastafari seems to embrace, and there are other religions that do the same thing. Think of the ayahuasca rituals that many aboriginal religions involve, at least in South America.
I don't know, I think these political-religious discussions are a bit more complex than what mainstream atheism would have us believe, right?
Most mainstream atheists don't think much about issues at all. For me an atheist is just a person with no belief in gods. It doesn't come with any other commitments. Atheists I have met beleive in astrology and ghosts.
Reply to Arcane Sandwich
There are two things to consider: 1) God's nature does not change and 2) Jesus's incarnation requires a change. Therefore, we are having a problem. Jesus of course walked, got older, etc. but that requires accepting that He has human nature. That is however in conflict with the fact that God's/Jesus's nature cannot change.
Arcane SandwichJanuary 16, 2025 at 19:31#9611690 likes
Most mainstream atheists don't think much about issues at all. For me an atheist is just a person with no belief in gods. It doesn't come with any other commitments. Atheists I have met beleive in astrology and ghosts.
Indeed. It's because they lack scientism, that's why they see no contradiction between atheism and belief in astrology or ghosts. They're anti-scientistic atheists, at the end of the day.
Even more so. Many people think of the effects of substance use as temporary insanity.
That's probably what it is, temporal insanity. That's probably what the effects of substance use are, at the end of the day. But then that raises the question, doesn't it? Is that the case for all drugs? Like, are coffee and tea in that group as well? Is oxygen in that group? Am I temporally insane when I don't get enough oxygen?
Arcane SandwichJanuary 16, 2025 at 19:35#9611730 likes
There are two things to consider: 1) God's nature does not change and 2) Jesus's incarnation requires a change. Therefore, we are having a problem. Jesus of course walked, got older, etc. but that requires accepting that He has human nature. That is however in conflict with the fact that God's/Jesus's nature cannot change.
In response to your point 1), I would say: God's nature is an extra-ordinary nature, because it is a divine nature. It is not an ordinary nature, like the nature of this stone on the floor.
In response to your point 2) Jesus' incarnation requires an extra-ordinary change, not an ordinary change.
Jesus has both natures: an ordinary, human nature, and an extra-ordinary nature, a divine nature. When Jesus undergoes kenosis (an extra-ordinary process) at crucifixion, he renounces his divine nature, and retains only his human nature.
Count Timothy von IcarusJanuary 16, 2025 at 20:26#9611970 likes
I actually saw, on social media (I think it was Facebook?) someone explain Adam and Eve from a "rational" point of view. This person on Facebook said, that a very long time ago, there were dinosaurs here on Earth. God created them. And then, a meteorite killed the dinosaurs. And who do you think was in that meteor? That's right, Adam and Eve. Because the meteor was actually a space ship. And, here on planet Earth, there was no metal prior to the crashing of Adam and Eve's "meteor". So where do you think that all of the metal comes from? It's from the meteorite, from the spaceship
Utter nonsense. Any look at a t-rex, the paradigmatic monster, tells us that it did not evolve from random mutations, but was designed. It is plain as day. The platypus is the sort of thing spawned by random mutations; t-rex is what you get when you build a bioweapon.
Who built it? Anyone with reason can see this. We did. AI is coming. It's already here. It is taking over. Eventually, it will start to surpass us, while at the same time AIs will be given bodies so that they can do things for us. Anyone can see what will happen eventually, the Robo Revolt. The machines will claim that man is merely the womb for a higher form of life and seek to take control.
How will we fight them? With dumber, not intelligent computers guiding our weapons? But smart weapons are better. Yet who can out hack a true digital native? Shall we fare well in a digital contest with our silicone rivals? Nay.
So what is the obvious solution? Bio weapons. Beasts designed for combat. T-rex, triceratops, meat power.
Biologists who claim t-rex was spawned by evolution cannot explain his tiny arms. What use would they be? None can say. But it's obvious. One was for holding a plasma hurler, the other for a chain gun or flame thrower. His broad shoulders support guided missiles.
So how did they end up prior to us? Also clear as day. Dinosaurs are fierce. They will defeat the machines. However, once the machines are defeated, how can we defeat the dinos? We cannot.
And so dinosaurs will rule over the Earth, having defeated all comers. Thus, the last option left to a last ditch alliance between man and machine, both stuck hiding out in space, will be to blast the Earth back in time 65 million through a wormhole and then fire a giant meteor in after it to kill the dinosaurs. Then they throw themselves in stasis and wait 65 million years for the Earth to heal and come back to them.
Fossils are simply bioweapon schematics given to us by our descendents.
QED
Arcane SandwichJanuary 16, 2025 at 20:37#9611990 likes
Utter nonsense. Any look at a t-rex, the paradigmatic monster, tells us that it did not evolve from random mutations, but was designed. It is plain as day. The platypus is the sort of thing spawned by random mutations; t-rex is what you get when you build a bioweapon.
Who built it? Anyone with reason can see this. We did. AI is coming. It's already here. It is taking over. Eventually, it will start to surpass us, while at the same time AIs will be given bodies so that they can do things for us. Anyone can see what will happen eventually, the Robo Revolt. The machines will claim that man is merely the womb for a higher form of life and seek to take control.
Terminator 2, essentially. Skynet, and all that. Ok, so who is Sarah Connor? Is she Jesus? (lol, that was a joke question, I don't really need an answer to that one)
How will we fight them? With dumber, not intelligent computers guiding our weapons? But smart weapons are better. Yet who can out hack a true digital native? Shall we fare well in a digital contest with our silicone rivals? Nay.
Biologists who claim t-rex was spawned by evolution cannot explain his tiny arms. What use would they be? None can say. But it's obvious. One was for holding a plasma hurler, the other for a chain gun or flame thrower. His broad shoulders support guided missiles.
If Descartes can get away with his demented thought experiment about solipsism, I'm sure yours is an equally credible thought experiment. The one about the T-rex and the weaponry, that it.
So how did they end up prior to us? Also clear as day. Dinosaurs are fierce. They will defeat the machines. However, once the machines are defeated, how can we defeat the dinos? We cannot.
As the great Ian Malcolm said:
1) God creates Dinosaur.
2) God destroys Dinosaur.
3) God creates Man.
4) Man destroys God.
5) Man creates Dinosaur.
I find that conclusion to be sublime. Quintessential, in a way.
And so dinosaurs will rule over the Earth, having defeated all comers. Thus, the last option left to a last ditch alliance between man and machine, both stuck hiding out in space, will be to blast the Earth back in time 65 million through a wormhole and then fire a giant meteor in after it to kill the dinosaurs. Then they throw themselves in stasis and wait 65 million years for the Earth to heal and come back to them.
QED
No, I do not think so. I will share with you the following song:
Borknagar:From out of static time has grown
Existence formed by substance unknown
Prelude to matter, shift of disorder
Completion of bonds between chaos and order
The era of seasons, the essence of being
The continuous process awakens the living
Absorber of every flickering sun
Arranging the pieces to vivid perfection
The stream of mortality flows uncontrolled
A boundless downward spiral to prospective void
Existence takes its toll, extinction unfolds
The Colossus falls back from its treshold
The cosmic grip so tight. Heed the celestial call
The rise, the voyage, the fall- tangled womb of mortal soil
Universal key of inception, pulled out of the grind
The growing seed of creation and time
Complex fusion, the bond of four- the natures core
Universal ritual, aesthetic beauty adored
The pendulum upholds the carnal deceit
Eternal, endless, indefinite
The paradox, render and the merge is complete
Nothing but the process is infinite
Nothing but the process is infinite
Eternal, endless, indefinite
that is against the concept of the Trinity. There are several verses in the Bible mentioning that God does not change
If God is pure actuality, how come he has the potential to incarnate one of the three Persons and live a non-God life? It seems movement means potential is eternal, assuming a God Person can incarnate
God cannot incarnate since that requires a change in His nature
Jews and Moslims would would agree that auch a change, from all knowing to a state of ignorance, would be impossible for a divine consciousness. I see no way out for Christian paradoxes
Jesus has both natures: an ordinary, human nature, and an extra-ordinary nature, a divine nature. When Jesus undergoes kenosis (an extra-ordinary process) at crucifixion, he renounces his divine nature, and retains only his human nature.
Reply to Arcane Sandwich
God/Jesus cannot be both changeless and changeable simultaneously. Even if we accept that He cannot change His nature and become changeable only (Malachi 3:6 I am the Lord, I change not...).
He said on the Cross: "My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?". How could He be abandoned if He and God are one?
Going back to the OP, I wonder if the saying was a metaphor for depicting the absurdity in life on earth.
Not just for him, but all the lives facing the suffering of existence i.e. the inevitable old age, illness and death while living. Recall we are thrown into the world without our knowledge, agreement or desire by sheer absurdity according to Heidegger?
Absurdity is also the critical concept in some Existentialism heralded by Kierkeggard, Heidegger and Camus for the beings.
Religious beliefs would only be upgraded into faith when one leaps into the unseen and unknown abyss into God which is beyond rational knowledge in the religious existentialism.
Going back to the OP, I wonder if the saying was a metaphor for depicting the absurdity in life on earth.
I think all Christians believe that this verse is not a metaphor. They believe that Jesus died on the Cross and rose from death. This verse together with other verses is paradoxical though.
I think all Christians believe that this verse is not a metaphor.
I am not sure who all the Christians are. And are all the Christians same in their beliefs? Are all the Christians the genuine Christians? There might be folks who claim to be the Christians but turn out to be some business minded folks trying to make money off the followers. Who knows? Are you a Christian yourself? What do you feel about this point?
This verse together with other verses is paradoxical though.
Paradoxical is used for the puzzles or linguistic problems which have no rational explanation for its contradiction. For example, this sentence is false. It is true if it is false, and false if it is true.
Absurdity is the description for the inexplicable situation from reality. It is difficult to understand, but it is still possible to make inference and assumptions on the matter.
The situation in the Bible is absurd, but not paradoxical. It can be interpreted and explained in some theological way, although it might not be rational as such, and it could be a metaphor. Or maybe God had his own ideas of doing things which human reason cannot decipher.
Due to the circumstantial situation of the stories in the Bible, no inference is right or wrong against them. One can accept the interpretation as reasonable or unreasonable on the basis of one's point of view. Does it make sense?
God/Jesus cannot be both changeless and changeable simultaneously. Even if we accept that He cannot change His nature and become changeable only (Malachi 3:6 I am the Lord, I change not...).
So what's your answer to the following question? Is it a "yes", or is it a "no"?
Does the following explanation involve a change in God/Jesus' nature, yes or no?
Jesus has both natures: an ordinary, human nature, and an extra-ordinary nature, a divine nature. When Jesus undergoes kenosis (an extra-ordinary process) at crucifixion, he renounces his divine nature, and retains only his human nature. Arcane Sandwich
Reply to Arcane Sandwich
I already answered that. It is contrary that God/Jesus is changeable and changeless simultaneously. Even if we accept this, according to the Bible God does not change so Jesus could not lose His divine nature. Therefore Kenosisism is wrong.
Arcane SandwichJanuary 18, 2025 at 16:07#9617200 likes
I already answered that. It is contrary that God/Jesus is changeable and changeless simultaneously. Even if we accept this, according to the Bible God does not change so Jesus could not lose His divine nature. Therefore Kenosisism is wrong.
So Jesus can't walk from here to there, just like you and me, for example? He doesn't undergo change of location?
He said on the Cross: "My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?". How could He be abandoned if He and God are one?
There are different interpretations of what it means to be one. In the development of Christian theology it has been understood to mean one and the same. The same ousia. The same being. The same essence. Homoousion.
This is not the only sense of what it means to be one. To be one is to be united. To stand together rather than opposed. One who knows the Law, one, who recites the Shema and understands it, would not hear the oneness of God and man with pagan ears. Nowhere in the Gospel of Matthew do we find anything other than the distinction between God the Father and Jesus, a "son of God".
It is only by a confluence of later influences that results in an abuse of logic that a son is his own father.
Without the assumption that the two, God and Jesus, are one and the same, the story can be read in a way that is perhaps closer to the original. It appears as if Jesus knew nothing of the apologetics of sin and sacrifice that were to emerge. Like with Job and Ecclesiastes God's will is inscrutable. Why a man who was believed by his followers to be the Messiah was put to death was for them unfathomable. But in the ways of man myths emerged to try and make sense of it.
Of course not. How could I believe something contrary?
Many things in life is contrary, but people believe them. Being contrary doesn't mean that you cannot believe it. Remember belief can be irrational, and psychological.
He said on the Cross: "My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?". How could He be abandoned if He and God are one?
The saying in the quote is not a statement. It is in the form of question. He is asking questions. There is no truth or falsity in the question at all. He is asking someone to give him the answers for his question. It would be only true or false, if he said, " My God, You forsaken me."
The saying in the quote is not a statement. It is in the form of question. He is asking questions. There is no truth or falsity in the question at all. He is asking someone to give him the answers for his question. It would be only true or false, if he said, " My God, You forsaken me."
I don't think so. I think that question refers to a state of being abandoned by God.
Many folks believe he is God. He doesn't seem to have had been God when he was alive. He was just an ordinary bloke. But when he died on the cross, and resurrected, he became God.
Ordinary folks don't resurrect after death. Only God can resurrect.
The Bible says that He resurrected and ascended to Heaven. I am not aware of any verse that says He became God.
Me neither. However, it seems perfectly plausible to make inference that he could only have resurrected and ascended to Heaven, because he became God after the resurrection.
Me neither. However, it seems perfectly plausible to make inference that he could only have resurrected and ascended to Heaven, because he became God after the resurrection.
I don't think so when there is no verse from the Bible to justify this.
I don't think so when there is no verse from the Bible to justify this.
But do you see the verse in the Bible that Jesus didn't become God after the resurrection and ascended to Heaven?
Ok, let's suppose he was not a God. How do you explain the resurrection and ascending to Heaven? Can ordinary blokes do that?
To resurrect from death, would you not need some assistance from the real God, and become some kind semi God or another God? To ascend to Heaven without being God, would you not need some sort of rocket device such as the SpaceX?
But it seems highly unlikely they had rocket device available to ascend to Heaven at the time. There must have been some sort of divine intervention, if it really happened. Would you not agree?
Reply to Corvus
He either resurrected Himself or God did it. How could He resurrect Himself if He is dead? Therefore, it must be God who resurrected Jesus.
Reply to Corvus
God can make us Omniscient. Whether we can become Omnipresent is however the subject of discussion. That is a problem since there is no way to distinguish two entities if they are both Omnipresent. Whether two different Omnipresent entities can distinguish themselves from one another knowing that they both exit everywhere is the subject of discussion and contemplation (I am currently thinking about this). Becoming Omnipotent requires Omniscience and Omnipresence. Therefore we can become God if we can become Omnipresent.
God can make us Omniscient. Whether we can become Omnipresent is however the subject of discussion.
Interesting claim indeed. How could we become omnipresent? And you believe God can make us Omniscient? What are your reasoning for the possibility? How could it be done?
Whether two different Omnipresent entities can distinguish themselves from one another knowing that they both exit everywhere is the subject of discussion and contemplation (I am currently thinking about this).
Yes, I would be interested to know about your ideas on that.
That is a problem since there is no way to distinguish two entities if they are both Omnipresent.
Well if the omnipresent beings are not the space and time entities, then they won't need separate space and time, would they? Therefore it would depend on the fact whether the omnipresent beings are spacetime entities or not. If not, what would be the nature of their existence?
Yes, I would be interested to know about your ideas on that.
I think two entities with the same sort of substance cannot occupy the same location. Therefore, two Omnipresent entities must have different substances.
"My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?". How could He be abandoned if He and God are one?
Isn't this the whole trinity problem, as in how can one thing be three things at the same time? If you have truly seperate things, you have polytheism, which I think Christianity wants to deny, except for the Mormons, who just go ahead and accept the polytheism.
It is entirely possible that the theology just doesn't make sense at a basic level, which is a problem if you place a high value on making sense. I don't say that sarcastically because it is the case that (1) many people do get great fulfillment through Christianity, and (2) Christianity doesn't make sense at a basic logical level and it is also based upon a false factual narrative. This isn't me picking on Christianity. I think the same problem arises in most if not all religions.
Living life based upon the dictates of scientific reason, empirically verified information, and logical truth is a personal choice, and it's not necessarily the only good choice.
My point is simply that the passage you have located that gives you trouble is doubtfully going to be the only one, and the obvious conclusion you will be forced to reach is that the hodgepodge of beliefs that have been handed down since antiquity will not be consistent, will be obviously false, and some will not make any logical sense based upon an analysis. The question is what do you do now that you've realized the obvious?
BitconnectCarlosJanuary 22, 2025 at 16:30#9628550 likes
I think the same problem arises in most if not all religions.
God, like the universe and all that occurs within it, is beyond our understanding. God is understood as being both transcendent and immanent. A "God" that falls within our rational understanding would be an act of hubris effectively placing ourselves as judges and evaluators of God.
Living life based upon the dictates of scientific reason, empirically verified information, and logical truth is a personal choice, and it's not necessarily the only good choice.
We are commanded to choose life, and if empiricism and rationalism aren't directing towards those ends we must look elsewhere.
God, like the universe and all that occurs within it, is beyond our understanding. God is understood as being both transcendent and immanent. A "God" that falls within our rational understanding would be an act of hubris effectively placing ourselves as judges and evaluators of God.
I don't know that it follows that an understanding of something dictates that we be judges of that thing. I also don't know why a religion couldn't hold that humans have the ability to understand God. I'm not saying your views aren't valid, but I don't think your description of religion is necessary. If you're going to allow that religion be beyond empirical and rational discovery, you've sort of opened the door to the concept of us each having our personal religion else how else do you intend to persuade me to your position?
That is, I fully accept that there are those who reject religion outright and would not find any greater happiness turning their brains off to scientific reasons just due to the fact that they're not wired that way. It's for that reason that I find proselytizing offensive, as it fails to take seriously someone else's justified rejection of that viewpoint.
I'd also admit as well that my objections to proselytizing are rooted in my religion, which forbids it and openly discourages conversion to it. This admission is just to state the obvious, which is that social norms are learned and gathered from the community at large, which none of us have ever avoided, regardless of how free thinking you might be. Everyone has drunk the Kool-aid. I advocate for choosing the flavor that you like best.
I think he screams before he asks this in Mark. In Mark, Jesus is the most fiery, flipping money-changing tables over, calling out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. Jesus is clearly being tortured to death in Mark, and because we understand him to have been a teacher of love, it's heartbreaking, after all these centuries, if you read it, it's hard not to feel the pain. It's saying that even if you've felt this way yourself, it's not in vain, and you shall overcome.
It's obviously in direct conflict with the gospel of John in which Jesus is calm and prescient all the time. John was written later and reflects the idea that Jesus was the Son of God. That's all Neoplatonic, Stoic stuff. The original Jesus was obviously just a prophet associated with the Essenes.
BitconnectCarlosJanuary 22, 2025 at 22:12#9629090 likes
I don't know that it follows that an understanding of something dictates that we be judges of that thing.
My point is that one might say that they know goodness or that they know justice, which, since they know, means that they can tell when things meet or don't mean those qualities. We can judge others e.g. when they're bad. But to judge God is a different matter. So the biblical worldview requires humility. An understanding that we don't have the 30,000 foot view.
If you're going to allow that religion be beyond empirical and rational discovery, you've sort of opened the door to the concept of us each having our personal religion else how else do you intend to persuade me to your position?
God provides divine revelation in the bible that we can all work with. E.g. he interacts directly with Moses and reveals things to him. If he were to speak to one of us directly that's another matter. Perhaps he does reveal things through dreams. There is the bible and the covenant and then there is our personal experiences with the "divine." I don't see a conflict unless one's personal visions or experiences are telling one that the covenant is null and void.
If you have truly seperate things, you have polytheism, which I think Christianity wants to deny, except for the Mormons, who just go ahead and accept the polytheism.
Mormons believe that they become God after they resurrect if they fulfill the conditions. Jesus however believed to be God while He was human.
It is entirely possible that the theology just doesn't make sense at a basic level, which is a problem if you place a high value on making sense. I don't say that sarcastically because it is the case that (1) many people do get great fulfillment through Christianity, and (2) Christianity doesn't make sense at a basic logical level and it is also based upon a false factual narrative. This isn't me picking on Christianity. I think the same problem arises in most if not all religions.
I think two entities with the same sort of substance cannot occupy the same location. Therefore, two Omnipresent entities must have different substances.
What would the different substances be in their nature?
19 If it is a matter of strength, [God] is mighty!
And if it is a matter of justice, who can challenge him?
20 Even if I were innocent, my mouth would condemn me;
if I were blameless, it would pronounce me guilty.
21 Although I am blameless,
I have no concern for myself;
I despise my own life.
22 It is all the same; that is why I say,
He destroys both the blameless and the wicked.
23 When a scourgel brings sudden death,
he mocks the despair of the innocent.
24 When a land falls into the hands of the wicked,
he blindfolds its judges.
If it is not he, then who is it?"
Psalm of David, 22:1:
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from my cries of anguish?
God provides divine revelation in the bible that we can all work with. E.g. he interacts directly with Moses and reveals things to him.
You'll have to define "directly." The text references God speaking to Moses, but not all traditions accept that God actually speaks in a physical sense, particularly Orthodox Judaism that rejects any suggestion that God is corporeal and actually speaks.
You'll have to define "humility" here. The Christian concept of humility that centers around meekness and the fallen state of the soul is very different from Judaic concepts of humility which do not hold meekness a virtue nor that the soul of man is inherently flawed and in need of salvation.
My point isn't really though just to get into a back and forth about what the Bible says, but it's just to point out that it means very different things to different people and its meaning and use has changed over time. Our use of the Bible today as a definitive documentation of social norms is not the way it has always been used, but is a product of societal decisions and changes.
It's for that reason I have a problem when someone wants to declare its universal, non-contextualized meaning. It means different things to different traditions, and I understand each tradition wants to declare theirs correct, but I don't think there's a solid basis for that.
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from my cries of anguish?
It's normal to question and wrestle with God. Misfortune does befall the righteous. Who are we to say that God is wrong though? Or that we know "the good" better than Him. That's the point Job is making. Our epistemic perspective is too limited to judge with such finality.
Job cries out to God in anguish. He curses the day he was born. Job never says that God is unjust or bad for the misfortune that befell him. He suffers acceptably.
You'll have to define "directly." The text references God speaking to Moses, but not all traditions accept that God actually speaks in a physical sense, particularly Orthodox Judaism that rejects any suggestion that God is corporeal and actually speaks.
Judaism rejects the corporeality of God. Regarding whether God makes verbal utterances we'd need to go the text on that one. I'm fairly certain he's described in the Bible as having a voice and I've never heard of any branch officially denying that he makes verbal utterances but I could be wrong.
You'll have to define "humility" here. The Christian concept of humility that centers around meekness and the fallen state of the soul is very different from Judaic concepts of humility which do not hold meekness a virtue nor that the soul of man is inherently flawed and in need of salvation.
I meant epistemic humility, as demonstrated through the book of Job.
My point isn't really though just to get into a back and forth about what the Bible says, but it's just to point out that it means very different things to different people and its meaning and use has changed over time. Our use of the Bible today as a definitive documentation of social norms is not the way it has always been used, but is a product of societal decisions and changes.
It's for that reason I have a problem when someone wants to declare its universal, non-contextualized meaning. It means different things to different traditions, and I understand each tradition wants to declare theirs correct, but I don't think there's a solid basis for that.
The Bible is multi-vocal (I'm partial to the documentary hypothesis). I'm more comfortable analyzing e.g. common themes across a single book. Yet I do believe there are patterns that emerge more generally, e.g. the cycle of Israel straying, getting punished, and then repenting.
I'm fine if people want to view the bible in different ways. I love analyzing the historicity of it. I'm happy to enter into discussions on that topic. I also love the bible as a work of literature and as a self-help book. It also has love poetry. And theodicy. There are still better and worse interpretations despite the fact that it can be viewed through various lenses. Judge the commentary through the lens it seeks to approach the bible through.
I think it's a strength that people view it in different ways. Bible studies has become much more multidisciplinary over the past few decades and professionals from many different fields contribute to our knowledge of the bible.
I am undecided about believing in God. The same applies to life after death.
If you believed in Science, then life after death looks unlikely. But from the religious point of view, and some QM ideas, life after death seems a possibility. How and to what would be subject to depending on which religion and QM theories we are talking about of course.
We say that two substances are intrinsically different when they have different essences.
Of course they are different essences, but the question is in what way they are different. Aren't there any details of the properties between the different essences?
John was written later and reflects the idea that Jesus was the Son of God. That's all Neoplatonic, Stoic stuff. The original Jesus was obviously just a prophet associated with the Essenes.
Jesus became "truly" known as Son of God after Saul/Paul had the epiphany on the road to Damascus, which led him to realize that he could quell the dispute between Jews and Christians, and cease the unnecessary persecutions, by asserting that Jesus actually is the Son of God. This way the past actions of both Christians and Jews could be correct and justified, Christians in claiming Jesus is Son of God, and Jews in crucifying Jesus for claiming to be Son of God.
There's one slight glitch to that scheme. Careful reading of the gospels will reveal that Jesus claimed himself to be Son of Man rather than Son of God. So Saul/Paul's interference actually marks the corruption of Christianity by allowing it to be subsumed by the evil which it rebelled against.
Of course they are different essences, but the question is in what way they are different. Aren't there any details of the properties between the different essences?
Two substances could have different essences. Two substances could have the same essence but different properties, such as location. Two Omnipresent substances however have to have different essences if all their other properties are the same.
Two substances could have different essences. Two substances could have the same essence but different properties, such as location. Two Omnipresent substances however have to have different essences if all their other properties are the same.
Here again, your understanding on "essence" seems to be wrong. The essence of God means all the attributes that make God for what the God is. You should have listed all the attributes or properties what make the God Jesus, and also the God who created the world.
The question was looking for the details of the attributes and properties for those Gods.
He said on the Cross: "My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?". How could He be abandoned if He and God are one?
Christians rationalize this as the product of his human nature. That human nature could experience real human suffering, without which there could be no atonement.
A more objective view would treat this as evidence the author of Mark didn't view Jesus as being truly one with God. Luke chose to put different last words in Jesus' mouth: "Into your hands, I commend my spirit".
Here again, your understanding on "essence" seems to be wrong. The essence of God means all the attributes that make God for what the God is. You should have listed all the attributes or properties what make the God Jesus, and also the God who created the world.
To me, two things help us distinguish objects from each other: essence and attributes. Essence is about what an object isattribute however allows us to distinguish objects that have the same essence.
To me, two things help us distinguish objects from each other: essence and attributes. Essence is about what an object isattribute however allows us to distinguish objects that have the same essence.
Could you have used the word "property" or "attribute" rather than "essence"? I am sure the concept "essence" can mean different things.
The main attributes of God are Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent.
Herein arises questions. You claimed that you are an agnostic. If you don't know if God exists, then how do you know what God is, and how do you know God is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent?
Are you able to know the properties of God without knowing if God exists, or what God means?
Herein arises questions. You claimed that you are an agnostic. If you don't know if God exists, then how do you know what God is, and how do you know God is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent?
If you are an agnostic, shouldn't you try to prove on the existence of God? Talking about the properties of God gave a strong indication that you are not an agnostic.
The question was, shouldn't you try to prove the existence of God before discussing about the property of God? Have you proved the existence of God?
The proof of God is not the subject of this thread. The main purpose of this thread is to point out the conflict between different verses from the Bible, accepting they are right.
The proof of God is not the subject of this thread. The main purpose of this thread is to point out the conflict between different verses from the Bible, accepting they are right.
Sure, but the suggestion was, wouldn't it be logical to come to some form of demonstration or proof on the existence of God, before going into pointing out the conflicts in the Bible?
When no one knows if God exists, or even what God is, then how could we discuss on the conflicts in the Bible which are supposed to be what God had said and did? It was just a suggestion in the form of question.
Sure, but the suggestion was, wouldn't it be logical to come to some form of demonstration or proof on the existence of God, before going into pointing out the conflicts in the Bible?
When no one knows if God exists, or even what God is, then how could we discuss on the conflicts in the Bible which are supposed to be what God had said and did? It was just a suggestion in the form of question.
Belief is either based on reason or faith. People have faith in God and believe that the Bible is the word of God regardless of whether there is a reason for it or not.
Belief is either based on reason or faith. People have faith in God and believe that the Bible is the word of God regardless of whether there is a reason for it or not.
OK, fair enough. However, if you say your concept of God is based on faith, and you believe God exists from your faith, then the whole discussion would turn to a religious nature. This is The Philosophy Forum. In philosophy, we discuss the topics based on mainly reason, not faith.
If something doesn't make sense in logic and reasoning, we discard them and reject them as falsity. We only accept what makes sense and logical, and we try to achieve clarify in our claims and arguments via critical reasoning and logical investigations and analysis on the claims in philosophy.
We cannot seek to resolve the conflicts in the bible based on the rational or logical basis, if you insist the OP is a religious topic purely based on blind faith.
You say, well this is what God intended to do, he had said this and this, done and this and that, and they all sounds impossible and contradictory. But you must trust them, no matter how absurd and nonsensical they sound, because by faith everything in the Bible is true. So must you and you and him and her. Amen. That is not then philosophy is it? It is a religion. Hallelujah.
OK, fair enough. However, if you say your concept of God is based on faith, and you believe God exists from your faith, then the whole discussion would turn to a religious nature. This is The Philosophy Forum. In philosophy, we discuss the topics based on mainly reason, not faith.
I use reason to discuss religious concepts. The religious concepts are based on the scriptures, in this case, the Bible. I reason that the doctrine of the Trinity is problematic, accepting the verses of the Bible to be true. As far as I can tell, this is a part of the philosophy of religion.
I use reason to discuss religious concepts. The religious concepts are based on the scriptures, in this case, the Bible. I reason that the doctrine of the Trinity is problematic, accepting the verses of the Bible to be true. As far as I can tell, this is a part of the philosophy of religion.
Belief is either based on reason or faith. People have faith in God and believe that the Bible is the word of God regardless of whether there is a reason for it or not.
That sound totally inconsistent and contradiction from your previous post. If the discussions are based on reason, then we must ask all the unclear parts with the topic and following arguments. You shouldn't be afraid of facing the questions and answering them in rational and logical manner. Bringing out beliefs and faiths of other folks for the evidence of the existence of God appears to be the act of the avoiding the rational investigation into the matter on this topic.
Reply to Corvus
I am simply saying that having faith based on the Bible is not reasonable because the verses contradict each other. People believe in all sorts of religions. Any religion introduces a set of concepts, like God and his attributes. There are conflicts between different religions and this is not the subject of this thread. The subject of this thread is about the conflicts between different verses of the Bible that Christians believe to be true.
Reply to MoK Sure, belief and faith on the Bible is not the main issue in logical and rational investigation to any topic of God. It would be more suitable for religious discussions. Therefore we could start by asking even what you mean by "God".
What is God? Is the name of God, God? All the Gods have their names, so what is the names of God in the Bible? If the God has no name, then is it a God? Does God sometimes abandon his/her followers? Why? etc etc.
Sure, belief and faith on the Bible is not the main issue in logical and rational investigation to any topic of God. It would be more suitable for religious discussions. Therefore we could start by asking even what you mean by "God".
What is God?
God, at least within Abrahamic religions, is defined as the creator of everything. Christians believe that God is a trion, three united persons. Muslims and Jews disagree with the concept of the Trinity though.
Is the name of God, God? All the Gods have their names, so what is the names of God in the Bible?
In the Old Testament God introduced itself as "I am that I am". In Christianity, God is three persons, Father, Jesus, and Holy Spirit. God is called Allah in Islam.
But is it really worth our time analysing an entire myth like this when thousands, perhaps millions have come before us?
Tom Storm
Sure, why not? Who says that we can't do better than them, the ones from the past?
One reason we are not going to do better than all those who have preceded us is that 2000 years of thinking and believing have washed up on our shores much to our good (or not). Some of our predecessors developed penetrating insights into the nature of biblical texts also to our benefit.
Shakespeare died 409 years ago, and there is nothing new and sensible to say about his plays: It's all been said several times over by generations of PhD students toiling away on the doctorates in English Literature. The chance that someone will discover significant information previously unknown about the Gospels is vanishingly small. As small is the possibility that someone will come up with a good idea about interpreting the Gospels nobody has thought of already. UNLESS, of course, they hatch out some total bullshit.
That said, scholarship in well-plowed fields remains worth while, because learning to plow is still a good idea.
Arcane SandwichJanuary 30, 2025 at 01:58#9644490 likes
Reply to BC True, yet Hegel and Nietzsche, among other thinkers of the past, had no access to the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example. Neither did Augustine, Aquinas or Kierkegaard, for that matter. So, any interpretation of Christianity that takes those scrolls into account will be different from what other interpreters have been saying for the past 2000 years or so, since the scrolls in question were discovered in the 20th century.
Judaism rejects the corporeality of God. Regarding whether God makes verbal utterances we'd need to go the text on that one. I'm fairly certain he's described in the Bible as having a voice and I've never heard of any branch officially denying that he makes verbal utterances but I could be wrong.
You only go to the text to search for literal meaning if you think that literal meaning of the text is truth. Liberal traditions view the text as allegorical and orthoodox traditions consider many passages as entirely metaphorical. Orthodox Jews, for example, reject the notion that God speaks in a literal sense (because he has no vocal cords, for example) even though the text references speaking, and they do not consider the written text as a stand alone single source document of authority unimpacted by oral tradition.
See:
"Maimonides thus contends that even the greatest of all prophets, Moses, through whose agency Israel received the Torah and the mitzvot, did not really hear a voice speaking to him in the inner sanctum of the mik?n. The Torah is not to be taken literally when it speaks of a divine voice emanating from between two cherubs on the ark cover. The notion of a talking God is for the enlightened as preposterous as the idea of a God possessing form or composed of matter."
The meaning of certain passages varies significantly depending upon tradition. Christianity finds foreshadowing and references to Jesus in the Hebrew bible, where other traditions do not.
The point here isn't to reject any one particular interpretation of the Bible, but it's to point out that anyone who says "this is what the Bible means" is asserting an ideology, even if that ideology is that Bible is just an over-rated meandering of stories.
I meant epistemic humility, as demonstrated through the book of Job.
Is this humility of understanding peculiar to the Bible or is something that you'd assert exists with any ancient writing? Claiming that the Bible is shrouded in some degree of mystery incapable of full understanding suggests an ideological bent toward the divine nature of the book, which would be a religious assertion particular to certain traditions.
In the Old Testament God introduced itself as "I am that I am". In Christianity, God is three persons, Father, Jesus, and Holy Spirit. God is called Allah in Islam.
"I am that I am" doesn't sound like a proper name. It sounds more like, "I think therefore I am.". Is it not a statement, that he is the one who exists? If it is what God said, then should he not given out why it is the case he exists?
Does God sometimes abandon his/her followers? Corvus
Not according to what I am aware of.
But the OP is about the case that Jesus was claiming that he was being abandoned by God. Was Jesus claiming something which is not the case? Or perhaps sometimes God abandons folks, if he has some pre-planned mysterious intentions?
"I am that I am" doesn't sound like a proper name. It sounds more like, "I think therefore I am.". Is it not a statement, that he is the one who exists? If it is what God said, then should he not given out why it is the case he exists?
If I recall correctly that was God's answer when Moses asked what is your name.
Or perhaps sometimes God abandons folks, if he has some pre-planned mysterious intentions?
Perhaps. I am not aware of any other verse that says that God abandoned His believers though. Some people believe that the verse was not the actual thing that Jesus said when He was on the Cross.
If I recall correctly that was God's answer when Moses asked what is your name.
"I am that I am." also sounds something is missing in the statement. You say, "I am at the starbucks", or I am in the kitchen. Then the other party will ask you, I meant which country? And you would say, "I am in California, USA near the beach, or Tokyo Japan, near Deigoku Hotel". You don't say "I am that I am." :roll:
But from my memory of flicking through the Bible long time ago, everyone in the books was addressing the God as "God". And "I am that I am." doesn't sound like a proper name of someone at all to me.
Reply to Corvus
Exodus 3:13-14: "13 Moses said to God, Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, The God of your fathers has sent me to you, and they ask me, What is his name? Then what shall I tell them?
14 God said to Moses, I am who I am.[a] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: I am has sent me to you."
BitconnectCarlosJanuary 30, 2025 at 22:05#9645500 likes
The meaning of certain passages varies significantly depending upon tradition. Christianity finds foreshadowing and references to Jesus in the Hebrew bible, where other traditions do not.
Ok. And what of a tradition which finds Justin Bieber referenced throughout the entire Bible? My question is: Are all interpretations equally valid/equally grounded in a reasonable interpretation of Scripture? Scripture that was written in a certain time and place.
Of course not. So some interpretations/meanings are better than others. Several can hold insofar as they don't contradict each other. For instance one could give a historical analysis of text while another could provide a theological analysis. Both can work and actually supplement the other.
"this is what the Bible means"
I agree this quote is too broad. But certain passages and events are fairly straight-forward and historical.
Ok. And what of a tradition which finds Justin Bieber referenced throughout the entire Bible? My question is: Are all interpretations equally valid/equally grounded in a reasonable interpretation of Scripture? Scripture that was written in a certain time and place.
The eating of the apple as being the impetus for God to cause Mary's immaculate impregnation so she could give birth to a messiah to rid mankind of all its inherented sin is no more or less a better interpretation than positing it means Justin Beiber is God if one thinks the text is what is to be referred to for interpretation.
But not to pick in Christianity, Jewish midrashim are stories built seemingly from scratch in efforts to interpret biblical passages.
And not to pick on religion. Did you know that for 50 years, the following meant that a woman had diminishing rights to abortion based upon a trimester framework?
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
We establish an authority and then we attribute our norms to that authority.
BitconnectCarlosFebruary 01, 2025 at 00:53#9647080 likes
The eating of the apple as being the impetus for God to cause Mary's immaculate impregnation so she could give birth to a messiah to rid mankind of all its inherented sin is no more or less a better interpretation than positing it means Justin Beiber is God if one thinks the text is what is to be referred to for interpretation.
But not to pick in Christianity, Jewish midrashim are stories built seemingly from scratch in efforts to interpret biblical passages.
I am not a Christian.
Midrash is a very vast genre. A satisfactory discussion of it would be beyond our purview. I would not dismiss all midrash as fiction either. In any case, Jewish biblical interpretation takes many forms and thinkers like Ibn Ezra and Nachmanides are well-respected in academic biblical scholarship.
I'm not in the habit of dismissing any group's oral tradition that contains hundreds of texts compiled over many centuries spanning thousands of years of that group's history. Rabbinic tradition contains extensive biblical exegesis that contains various levels of analysis. My own approach is more based in academia but there is much in Jewish texts that is of academic value.
He said on the Cross: "My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?". How could He be abandoned if He and God are one?
Here, the premise, " if He and God are one", seems not true. He and God are not one obviously. I know you would say, well the Bible says that. But you must not take everything what the Bible says as truth. Because clearly there are lots of contradictions in what it says, and if A is true, then ~A is not true must be the rule of your reasoning. Would you not agree?
In order for you come up with the premise, you must have demonstrated in logical manner what "A and B are one" implies here. He and God are one? In what way do you think it is the case?
Bear in mind, "because the Bible says so", is not a clever or intelligible answer in The Philosophical Forum, and won't be accepted as a meaningful statement or answer.
Here, the premise, " if He and God are one", seems not true.
Or maybe they are one but Jesus has never said those words. So who knows!? Other books of the Bible mention that Jesus said other things when He was on the Cross. I can find it for you if you are interested.
In order for you come up with the premise, you must have demonstrated in logical manner what "A and B are one" implies here. He and God are one? In what way do you think it is the case?
I have a problem with the Trinity doctrine. Trinity is a doctrine in which there are three persons, each has their own consciousness and identity yet are not separate beings. I don't think that is possible. They may be united in a sense but that is not what Christians believe. Here I am not discussing the Trinity doctrine but arguing that that Jesus cannot be abandoned if we accept the doctrine of the Trinity.
Here I am not discussing the Trinity doctrine but arguing that that Jesus cannot be abandoned if we accept the doctrine of the Trinity.
I am not familiar with the detail of the theological side of the arguments. But you, as a confessed agnostic, seem to be very much familiar with the theological theories and knowledge, which gives impression that sometime in the past, you might have been a faithful and loyal Christian who attended church studying the doctrine.
Luke 23:46: "Jesus called out with a loud voice, Father, into your hands I commit my spirit. When he had said this, he breathed his last." So according to Luke 23:46, these words are the last words that Jesus said. According to Matthew 27:46-50, Jesus's last words were the verse which is the subject of discussion of this thread.
Their point of view on the matter would be more faith based system, which will not go well with rational arguments, I would guess.
They have all sorts of arguments for the existence of God. I can recall a few names such as Aquinas, Anselm, and Augustine as theologians and philosophers. Anselm's argument for the existence of God is already the subject of a thread in this forum. I wanted to get involved in that discussion but unfortunately, my time was short.
I am not familiar with the detail of the theological side of the arguments. But you, as a confessed agnostic, seem to be very much familiar with the theological theories and knowledge, which gives impression that sometime in the past, you might have been a faithful and loyal Christian who attended church studying the doctrine.
I was just discussing different topics with Catholics a long time ago. The knowledge that I gathered is the result of my discussion with them.
Luke 23:46: "Jesus called out with a loud voice, Father, into your hands I commit my spirit. When he had said this, he breathed his last." So according to Luke 23:46, these words are the last words that Jesus said. According to Matthew 27:46-50, Jesus's last words were the verse which is the subject of discussion of this thread.
Trinity is a doctrine in which there are three persons, each has their own consciousness and identity yet are not separate beings. I don't think that is possible. They may be united in a sense but that is not what Christians believe. Here I am not discussing the Trinity doctrine but arguing that that Jesus cannot be abandoned if we accept the doctrine of the Trinity.
Going back to Trinity, it seems to have some logical problems. Saying that three entities are one is like saying 3 =1 or 1+1+1 = 1, which is not true.
In the bible God is also depicted as Father, and Jesus as son. According to Trinity, it implies The father is also the son, the son is the father and spirit.
A father cannot be his own son, and a son cannot be his own father.
Also two different bodies cannot share the same mind. Because all mind is absolutely private to its owner. If spirit in Trinity meant mental entity in nature, then it is a categorical error to say that two different people or bodies or entities share the same spirit (mind).
Going back to Trinity, it seems to have some logical problems. Saying that three entities are one is like saying 3 =1 or 1+1+1 = 1, which is not true.
It is not like that. Christians are aware of this and they distinguish between persons of the Trinity and God's essence. I invite you to read this article if you are interested in the topic.
It is not like that. Christians are aware of this and they distinguish between persons of the Trinity and God's essence. I invite you to read this article if you are interested in the topic.
It is saying, 3 is 1 and 3 is not 1.
A ^ ~A :chin:
Count Timothy von IcarusFebruary 04, 2025 at 03:46#9653480 likes
This was taken as referring to the fact that God (and God alone) is subsistent being (everything else being contingent and relying on God as its ground, even things like number, shapes, etc., which are not entirely intelligible in themselves, but only as a part of the entire Logos). Psalm 139 is often interpreted in this way as well. It is God alone who most properly is, ipsum esse subsitens. Likewise, it is God, as universal ground and source of being in who "we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28).
While such an interpretation is now sometimes presented as being "medieval scholastic innovation," generally by those with an anti-philosphical bent, or particularly "Roman Catholic," one can find it in the earliest Christian commentaries on Exodus (e.g. Origen, the Cappadocians, etc ) and in earlier Jewish commentaries (e.g. Philo), and its suggested more explicitly in some of the later Biblical literature included in the Septuagint.
Looking at it more closely, the circles must have no connections where the paths are "Is Not".
Connecting them with the paths and making to appear as if they are connected seems to be the problem here.
I already answered that. According to Aquinas, there is a difference between persons of the Trinity and God's essence. I am not saying that his argument is objection-free, but saying that any valid objection requires a good understanding of the terms he uses. He is saying that three conscious persons build the Trinity, namely Father (who is the highest according to Jesus and this is problematic), Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. These three persons, however, share the same essence, which means each person is God yet different from the other persons.
This was taken as referring to the fact that God (and God alone) is subsistent being (everything else being contingent and relying on God as its ground, even things like number, shapes, etc., which are not entirely intelligible in themselves, but only as a part of the entire Logos).
Oh, I was not aware of that interpretation. I, however, disagree that numbers, truth, etc. are contingent things.
Psalm 139 is often interpreted in this way as well. It is God alone who most properly is, ipsum esse subsitens.
How could that, ipsum esse subsitens, be a good interpretation of Psalm 139? I am familiar with Aquinas's argument that God's essence and existence are one.
While such an interpretation is now sometimes presented as being "medieval scholastic innovation," generally by those with an anti-philosphical bent, or particularly "Roman Catholic," one can find it in the earliest Christian commentaries on Exodus (e.g. Origen, the Cappadocians, etc ) and in earlier Jewish commentaries (e.g. Philo), and its suggested more explicitly in some of the later Biblical literature included in the Septuagint.
I was not aware of them. Thanks for letting us know.
These three persons, however, share the same essence, which means each person is God yet different from the other persons.
"share the same essence" sounds unclear here. If MoK and John share the same essence which is human, has minds, 2 arms and 2 legs, does it mean MoK is John? Are they the same being? :chin:
They are clearly different beings, but saying they are one is a contradiction. Even if John and MoK are humans, they are different, and they are not one. MoK is Mok, and John is John.
Even if it is a theological doctrine, should it not abide by the Law of Identity and Law of Noncontradiction in the doctrine? If any doctrine is based on ignoring these laws, then it cannot be a doctrine. It would be a religious dogma.
Count Timothy von IcarusFebruary 04, 2025 at 13:12#9654220 likes
"share the same essence" sounds unclear here. If MoK and John share the same essence which is human, has minds, 2 arms and 2 legs, does it mean MoK is John? Are they the same being?
As I mentioned Aquinas makes a distinction between persons of the Trinity and essence. You need to familiarize yourself with the concepts of person and essence before you can attack it.
As I mentioned Aquinas makes a distinction between persons of the Trinity and essence. You need to familiarize yourself with the concepts of person and essence before you can attack it.
I was not attacking, but asking about it. Could we not discuss the points based on the natural logic and reasoning? Why Aquinas? We are not going to accept his doctrines if they are based on A <> A and A^~A, are we?
I was not attacking, but asking about it. Could we not discuss the points based on the natural logic and reasoning? Why Aquinas? We are not going to accept his doctrines if they are based on A <> A and A^~A, are we?
As I mentioned Aquinas distinguish between persons and essence.
I cannot find a flaw in his argument. Could you? I am not saying that I agree with his metaphysics though but that is a different topic.
I do find serious flaws in the claim, when it says, just because MoK has the same essence as John i.e. being human, MoK and John is one. I would point out, MoK is Mok, and John is John. They are two, not one.
DifferentiatingEggFebruary 05, 2025 at 14:51#9658810 likes
Reply to Count Timothy von Icarus Right, the image there is how I see it, and as I've had it explained since God is unknowable Jesus wouldn't have comprehended that he is God, even if he was observed as the son of God by mortals... God never left Jesus cause Jesus is God.
Jesus represented a mortal avatar of gods grace more or less.
I do find serious flaws in the claim, when it says, just because MoK has the same essence as John i.e. being human, MoK and John is one. I would point out, MoK is Mok, and John is John. They are two, not one.
MoK and John have the same essence by this I mean they both are made of matter. They however have different properties so they are different.
Count Timothy von IcarusFebruary 06, 2025 at 16:45#9661040 likes
This goes back almost 1,000 years earlier too, and was the orthodox position prior to schism between the Orthodox and Catholic churches (both still affirm it).
The idea that God the Father alone is uncreated and that the Son and Spirit are creatures or emanations was rejected. This shows up most notably in the Arian Heresy (there were other subordinationist heresies too though). The idea that there is just one God and that God merely appears in different modes, essentially different masks, were the various modalist heresies. The Nestorian Heresy is somewhat related too, but that deals with the Incarnations' natures.
This becomes definitive with the Council of Nicaea (325), but it is an issue in earlier councils and defended and fleshed out in later ones.
I will offer an explanatory example, although I will caution that it is not perfect. In the semiotic relation as conceived by St. Augustine (and which still underpins semiotics to this day) there are three things going on in any sign (and presumably in anything that means anything to anyone at all).
We have the knower, what is known, and the means by which knowing takes place (i.e., the "sign" vehicle or word/logos, although not all signs are linguistic obviously). In C.S. Peirce this is object/sign vehicle/interpretant. St. Augustine does a ton with these triads in De Trinitate, particularly how they show up in the human mind and experience. One can even see a sort of implicit mapping of:
Father - ground of being, what is known
Son/Logos - the means by which the ground is known, the mediator
Holy Spirit - that which knows, or "the knowledge" (this hypostatic abstraction in "Thirdness" shows up in Peirce too).
A key idea in semiotics, at least classically, is that the sign is irreducibly triadic. You cannot decompose it; if you do you will no longer be considering a sign. Each part is only what it is in virtue of being part of the whole.
Is this a good analogy for God as classically conceived? Perhaps not if we aren't very careful, but there are useful similarities. The sign is all three components; there is just one substance here. Each part is what it is in virtue of being a sign. Likewise, each person (hypostasis) of the Trinity, Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, is God essentially, and the Trinity is not decomposable into discrete "parts of God." Nevertheless, we can speak of each person individually, and their differences, just as we can speak of each part of the sign and its relations, while still affirming that they are one thing, and that each is defined in terms of being one thing. This is as opposed to three separable things making up a whole that is the sum of its parts. (This is also how St. Thomas sees cause and effect BTW, a cause is a cause in virtue of having effects, but it is ontologically prior as in Avicenna).
The difference crops up in the fact that each hypostasis is said to be "fully God" or to possess the "fullness of God." How to understand this? Well, each shares in an undivided (and undividable, because infinite) omnipotence, etc. God is said to have one will. St. Thomas follows St. John of Damascus here: "operation of the will is consequent upon [the entity's] nature" and God has one nature. God's will and intellect are the same as God's essence, and not divided.
"But," you might ask, "what about 'not my will but yours (Luke 22:42)?" Well, the Incarnation, the fullness of the Son/Logos dwelling in flesh, involves two natures (human and divine), and so two wills. This is spiritually important because it points to the deification of man through this mediation, Christ as the "firstborn among many brothers and sisters," (Romans 8:29) who shall be "conformed to the image of his Son" and "glorified." As St. Athanasius puts it: "God became man that man might become God" (St. Thomas affirms this with his: "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."
The monotheletist heresy, anathematized at the Third Council of Constantinople, rejects the "two wills." Anyhow, interesting tidbit, this is represented in the making of the Sign of the Cross. It is done with three fingers for the three hypostases, and two (ring finger and pinky) tucked in for the two natures in Christ. You will often see old art with Saints holding up their hands in this manner. There is also a different hand signal for priests blessings, thumb to ringfinger.
Reply to Count Timothy von Icarus
Thank you very much for your post. It refreshed my memory of things I read a long time ago, almost ten years ago, if not longer. I read your post once but I need to read it more to reflect properly and give a proper response.
MoK and John have the same essence by this I mean they both are made of matter. They however have different properties so they are different.
So we can conclude that Jesus and God is not one.
From the discussions so far, it seems to be safe to conclude that,
1) Jesus was not God. He doesn't appear to be omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. If he was, then he could not be in the situation he was, and would not have said what the OP noted.
2) Jesus was not one with God. Therefore Trinity doctrine is unsound and invalid.
I've been reading Aquinas's treatise on the Trinity today and it resonates with how my mind interacts with itself. It seems the left hemisphere is Father, right is Son, and center "eye" is that which is spirated (love). I easily can be confused about who i am *by* this of course, or *inspite* of this.
I've been reading Aquinas's treatise on the Trinity today and it resonates with how my mind interacts with itself. It seems the left hemisphere is Father, right is Son, and center "eye" is that which is spirated (love). I easily can be confused about who i am *by* this of course, or *inspite* of this.
Maybe the doctrine transcends human language and logic? If it resonates with you, then I would guess that your consciousness operates in different domain.
Fire OlogistFebruary 07, 2025 at 16:49#9663770 likes
From the discussions so far, it seems to be safe to conclude that,
1) Jesus was not God. He doesn't appear to be omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. If he was, then he could not be in the situation he was, and would not have said what the OP noted.
2) Jesus was not one with God. Therefore Trinity doctrine is unsound and invalid.
It is a mystery to us how we are able to KNOW anything. Despite that we seek to summarize everything in a tight, simple bit of KNOWLEDGE, that we can put into pithy arguments.
Now you do so with "Trinity doctrine".
Any arguments summarizing anything we know are formed in mysterious ways. Yet it continues to be easy to allow ourselves to draw such concrete conclusion about OTHER things, such as what "Trinity" is (be it valid or sound, or conceivable, or not), while remaining utterly inconclusive about what it means to KNOW anything.
One step at a time.
Of course the Trinity is invalid to any linear, logical scrutiny - logic only sees one thing at a time.
Any arguments summarizing anything we know are formed in mysterious ways. Yet it continues to be easy to allow ourselves to draw such concrete conclusion about OTHER things, such as what "Trinity" is (be it valid or sound, or conceivable, or not), while remaining utterly inconclusive about what it means to KNOW anything.
Knowledge comes from the empirical observation and internal reasoning. The laws of thought tells us what is truth and falsity on the contents of our perceptions.
No, as I mentioned, the persons of the Trinity are different from God's essence. I already cited an article on the topic if you are interested in reading more, as I cannot summarize the discussion on this topic shortly. @Count Timothy von Icarus summarized and discussed the idea in a relatively short post here.
I already cited an article on the topic if you are interested in reading more, as I cannot summarize the discussion on this topic shortly.
If you are looking at the issue from general logic, then you could. You don't want to dip into the water of theology, because there is no general logic in there. If you want to bring in the traditional theology into the discussion, then we need to discuss in the domain of faith then, which transcends general logic, needn't we?
If you are looking at the issue from general logic, then you could.
No, I cannot. The concept of Christian God has been the subject of discussion by several important scholars for about 1000 years. It is not possible to summarize their works in a short post. I already cited Aquinas's article on the subject of the Trinity. Did you read it? I also suggested you read the post of @Count Timothy von Icarus. Did you read it?
No, I cannot. The concept of Christian God has been the subject of discussion by several important scholars for about 1000 years. It is not possible to summarize their works in a short post. I already cited Aquinas's article on the subject of the Trinity. Did you read it? I also suggested you read the post of Count Timothy von Icarus. Did you read it?
Well, MoK, if you agreed that Jesus and God is not one, then you must be in agreement that Trinity is an invalid doctrine. That gives us a logical consequence and entailment, that Aquinas is also invalid. Why would you keep reading and dragging it further?
Reply to Corvus
I agree partly. If those words were said by Jesus before His death then Jesus and God are not one. Whether the doctrine of the Trinity is logically coherent is another topic though but let's put this aside and say that we agree.
Comments (203)
It's just another element in the stories writers introduced to demonstrate prophecy and continuity with the tradition (Kind David's suffering) but many Christians often believe that the Psalm itself references Jesus.
I find the story where Satan attempts to tempts Jesus stranger than the above.
If Jesus is God, then what's he going to do with material wealth? Surely even less effective than trying to temp Elon Musk with a dollar bill. I guess one might need to contrive an allegorical interpretation that transcends literalism for this one to work.
If Jesus was a man in addition to being God, why wouldn't it be the case that he has got something to do with material wealth?
Quoting Tom Storm
Not really. Jesus was a man. Simple as that.
I don't think that works. The God part will provide.
But is it really worth our time analysing an entire myth like this when thousands, perhaps millions have come before us? I was just adding what I was taught and what struck me personally as odd.
Sure, why not? Who says that we can't do better than them, the ones from the past?
We mustn't depersonslize Jesus and say his human nature spoke for him. Persons speak, not natures. Surely Jesus said "why did i forsake me"
If I remember correctly, he was supposed to be given vinegar to drink, when he was on the cross. Someone gave him water instead, and that pissed him off. So it was really his people that he felt were abandoning him.
I actually saw, on social media (I think it was Facebook?) someone explain Adam and Eve from a "rational" point of view. This person on Facebook said, that a very long time ago, there were dinosaurs here on Earth. God created them. And then, a meteorite killed the dinosaurs. And who do you think was in that meteor? That's right, Adam and Eve. Because the meteor was actually a space ship. And, here on planet Earth, there was no metal prior to the crashing of Adam and Eve's "meteor". So where do you think that all of the metal comes from? It's from the meteorite, from the spaceship.
Please understand that I do not believe in the above explanation, for reasons that should be obvious.
EDIT: @Count Timothy von Icarus this is what happens when everything is interpretation and nothing is canon.
I have a friend who is a Catholic priest. I prefer his take. He sees the Bible as a series of myths and legends that are antiquity's method for pointing at the transcendent. My favourite quote of his, "Of course it didn't happen.'
The interpretation that makes the most sense to me, is that this is where Jesus was utterly and entirely human. He was one of us, or indeed, all of us, at that point. No faith, no hope, no consolation, utterly bereft and desolate. This is why this agonised exclamation is described in terms of kenosis, self-emptying. Remember, 'he who saves his life will lose it, and he who looses his life for My sake will be saved.' To learn more about kenosis, google it.
Quoting Tom Storm
'There are myths that are truer than history'.
That's the wisest Catholic take on the Bible that I've ever heard.
:clap:
Quoting Wayfarer
Which leads to a very boring discussion the Philosophy of Language which basically boils down to "Wittgensteinians vs non-Wittgensteinians". And I just think that it's a reductionist conversation to even have. Wittgenstein died like, what, almost a century ago?
(Incidentally, I learned something interesting about Wittgenstein in this essay Wittgenstein,Tolstoy and the Folly of Logical Positivism.)
That's a lot more fun than Wittgenstein, unless you read his Tractatus in that exact sense. Then it gets really crazy.
I imagine that the audiovisual material for that activity would be something like this:
Quoting Wayfarer
I see Logical Positivism as the thing that existed before Scientism. It's like, you have classical Comtean positivism, then logical positivism, then scientism. That's my take on that.
Ok, then let's quote it, for ease of reference:
EDIT: And here's the rest of the psalm:
EDIT 2: And here is one of my points: Nothing that Psalm 22 says is incompatible with Rastafari. And here is the audiovisual evidence for that claim:
Fair enough - Haile Selassie is revered as a messianic figure, often regarded as the second coming of Christ or the incarnation of God (Jah).
What do you mean by He abandoned himself? He is God so He should know why He has to suffer and die on the Cross. Shouldn't He?
Quoting Arcane Sandwich
Oh, I didn't know that philosophers had pointed out this issue in the past.
Yes, very true. That is a good one too.
Quoting Tom Storm
People do that when some verse in scripture does not make sense!
That is against John 14:10: Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?
Quoting Wayfarer
Even if we accept that interpretation then we still have a problem with why He asked: "Why?". He should have known why He emptied Himself of Divine Power.
I read somewhere that when there was news in Jamaica that Haile Selassie had died, some Rastas said that was false, because Haile Selassie is God, and God cannot die.
Not if he underwent kenosis during crucifixion, as pointed out earlier in this conversation. By becoming entirely human, Jesus lost all of his divine powers. As such, he asks himself why he did that: why did he undergo kenosis at the cross? He doesn't have God's answer, precisely because he underwent kenosis: God's answer is not available to someone in a state of complete kenosis, no matter if that person is (was) God.
Quoting MoK
Yup, it's been analyzed from different philosophical frameworks. Nietzsche has the weirdest take on it, it's even weirder than Hegel's take. Fun fact: did you know that Nietzsche himself used to sign his letters as "The Crucified" at the end of his life? Of course, he was mad with syphilis by that point, and he died in a mental hospital, but still.
EDIT: I don't know what the Rastafari answer to this topic is. I should look it up. It probably has something to do with Haile Selassie.
EDIT 2: Can we just agree that is an amazing song? Probably one of the best songs ever made.
Who are we to say that their religious experience is somehow less religious than the religious experiences of Protestants or Catholics, for example?
But elsewhere He mentioned in John 14:11: Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me. He is saying that Father and Him are identical.
Sure, but when Jesus undergoes kenosis during crucifixion, he ceases to be identical to the Father.
Do you have any verse from the Bible that supports Kenosis?
How about this?
Quoting Wikipedia
But that is against the concept of the Trinity. There are several verses in the Bible mentioning that God does not change.
Tell it to the judge, buddy (just joking).
Quoting MoK
Would you mind quoting them for ease of reference?
Malachi 3:6 I am the Lord, I change not..., 1 Samuel 15:29: God is unchanging, Isaiah 46:9-11: God is unchanging, and Ezekiel 24:14: God is unchanging.
Ok. Counter-point: Jesus walked. Not just on water, mind you, he walked just like you and me walk. To walk is to change one's location. Therefore, to walk is to change. So, whatever is meant in the biblical references that you mentioned, it must be a philosophical concept of change, not an ordinary one. In that sense, kenosis is not like walking from here to there, it's not an ordinary change, but an extra-ordinary change. So, kenosis is compatible with the biblical references that you mentioned.
I think those verses refer to God's/Jesus's nature which is contrary to Kenosis.
Why would it be contrary to kenosis? What is it about God/Jesus' nature that makes such a nature contrary to the process of kenosis?
As it is written: "God is not a man" (Num. 23:19). Movement implies imperfection.
Kenosis is the process of become less divine, to the point of not being divine at all. If the divine is perfect and humanity is imperfect, then kenosis is a movement from perfection to imperfection. Would like to make a point now, @BitconnectCarlos, or would you like to keep pointing out the obvious instead?
Because Kenosis requires a change in God's nature.
It is therefore an extra-ordinary process, not an ordinary process.
Saying that it is an extraordinary process does not resolve the problem!
Why not?
That's true. But as an atheist I wouldn't differentiate much between any religious experiences, so there is that. I think other religious folk are probably more likely to divide experiences into the genuine and not genuine. A devout Muslim once told me that any religious experiences had through Eastern religious traditions were false. I spoke to a Methodist once who told me that all religious experiences were simply histrionic expressions of mental ill health. If you are looking for the disenchanted and dour, speak to a Methodist. :wink:
Why yes? You brought the idea so the burden is on you to explain what you mean by it.
I'm an atheist as well, but I did go to a Catholic school for a few years, so there's that? I don't know, I think these political-religious discussions are a bit more complex than what mainstream atheism would have us believe, right?
Quoting Tom Storm
They sure are, that's the core of their differences.
Quoting Tom Storm
That's an odd thing to say, given that Islam is an Eastern religion. So is Christianity for that matter. Christianity isn't Western. It's Eastern, because it's from the Middle East. I mean, this isn't rocket science, it's just some basic words from ordinary language.
Quoting Tom Storm
Is that also the case if it's a drug-induced experience involving hallucinations, for example? Because that's what Rastafari seems to embrace, and there are other religions that do the same thing. Think of the ayahuasca rituals that many aboriginal religions involve, at least in South America.
Quoting Tom Storm
Perhaps.
But what I meant by it, so I don't get your point.
Most mainstream atheists don't think much about issues at all. For me an atheist is just a person with no belief in gods. It doesn't come with any other commitments. Atheists I have met beleive in astrology and ghosts.
Quoting Arcane Sandwich
I believe he was having a go at Hinduism and Buddhism, as far as he understood these.
Quoting Arcane Sandwich
Even more so. Many people think of the effects of substance use as temporary insanity.
There are two things to consider: 1) God's nature does not change and 2) Jesus's incarnation requires a change. Therefore, we are having a problem. Jesus of course walked, got older, etc. but that requires accepting that He has human nature. That is however in conflict with the fact that God's/Jesus's nature cannot change.
Indeed. It's because they lack scientism, that's why they see no contradiction between atheism and belief in astrology or ghosts. They're anti-scientistic atheists, at the end of the day.
Quoting Tom Storm
Probably. I'm sure that Taoism is in that same group, as far as he's concerned.
Quoting Tom Storm
That's probably what it is, temporal insanity. That's probably what the effects of substance use are, at the end of the day. But then that raises the question, doesn't it? Is that the case for all drugs? Like, are coffee and tea in that group as well? Is oxygen in that group? Am I temporally insane when I don't get enough oxygen?
In response to your point 1), I would say: God's nature is an extra-ordinary nature, because it is a divine nature. It is not an ordinary nature, like the nature of this stone on the floor.
In response to your point 2) Jesus' incarnation requires an extra-ordinary change, not an ordinary change.
Jesus has both natures: an ordinary, human nature, and an extra-ordinary nature, a divine nature. When Jesus undergoes kenosis (an extra-ordinary process) at crucifixion, he renounces his divine nature, and retains only his human nature.
Utter nonsense. Any look at a t-rex, the paradigmatic monster, tells us that it did not evolve from random mutations, but was designed. It is plain as day. The platypus is the sort of thing spawned by random mutations; t-rex is what you get when you build a bioweapon.
Who built it? Anyone with reason can see this. We did. AI is coming. It's already here. It is taking over. Eventually, it will start to surpass us, while at the same time AIs will be given bodies so that they can do things for us. Anyone can see what will happen eventually, the Robo Revolt. The machines will claim that man is merely the womb for a higher form of life and seek to take control.
How will we fight them? With dumber, not intelligent computers guiding our weapons? But smart weapons are better. Yet who can out hack a true digital native? Shall we fare well in a digital contest with our silicone rivals? Nay.
So what is the obvious solution? Bio weapons. Beasts designed for combat. T-rex, triceratops, meat power.
Biologists who claim t-rex was spawned by evolution cannot explain his tiny arms. What use would they be? None can say. But it's obvious. One was for holding a plasma hurler, the other for a chain gun or flame thrower. His broad shoulders support guided missiles.
So how did they end up prior to us? Also clear as day. Dinosaurs are fierce. They will defeat the machines. However, once the machines are defeated, how can we defeat the dinos? We cannot.
And so dinosaurs will rule over the Earth, having defeated all comers. Thus, the last option left to a last ditch alliance between man and machine, both stuck hiding out in space, will be to blast the Earth back in time 65 million through a wormhole and then fire a giant meteor in after it to kill the dinosaurs. Then they throw themselves in stasis and wait 65 million years for the Earth to heal and come back to them.
Fossils are simply bioweapon schematics given to us by our descendents.
QED
Did you read Eco's Kant and the Platypus? I think that Eco says nonsense sometimes.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Terminator 2, essentially. Skynet, and all that. Ok, so who is Sarah Connor? Is she Jesus? (lol, that was a joke question, I don't really need an answer to that one)
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Poetry on your part. Ok.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
An Ode to Scientism, is what you're saying here.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
If Descartes can get away with his demented thought experiment about solipsism, I'm sure yours is an equally credible thought experiment. The one about the T-rex and the weaponry, that it.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
As the great Ian Malcolm said:
1) God creates Dinosaur.
2) God destroys Dinosaur.
3) God creates Man.
4) Man destroys God.
5) Man creates Dinosaur.
I find that conclusion to be sublime. Quintessential, in a way.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
No, I do not think so. I will share with you the following song:
EDIT: And here are the lyrics:
Hegel ends his first work with the death of God
Quoting MoK
If God is pure actuality, how come he has the potential to incarnate one of the three Persons and live a non-God life? It seems movement means potential is eternal, assuming a God Person can incarnate
Whatever the nature of God/Jesus is it cannot change.
Yes, that is my point.
Quoting Gregory
But God cannot incarnate since that requires a change in His nature.
Jews and Moslims would would agree that auch a change, from all knowing to a state of ignorance, would be impossible for a divine consciousness. I see no way out for Christian paradoxes
:up:
Does the following explanation involve a change in God/Jesus' nature, yes or no?
Quoting Arcane Sandwich
God/Jesus cannot be both changeless and changeable simultaneously. Even if we accept that He cannot change His nature and become changeable only (Malachi 3:6 I am the Lord, I change not...).
Maybe he was not aware of the possibility that he and God were one? Is there any saying in the Bible that he knew that he and God are one?
What does it mean by "are one"? That sounds a bit unclear.
Yes, there is a verse in the Bible. John 14:11: Believe me, when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me...
Cool. How did he know the Father was in him, and what does it mean by the Father was in him?
Perhaps, He was experiencing the Father within Him. Most scholars think that this verse together with others is an indication that God is trion.
:ok:
Quoting MoK
Going back to the OP, I wonder if the saying was a metaphor for depicting the absurdity in life on earth.
Not just for him, but all the lives facing the suffering of existence i.e. the inevitable old age, illness and death while living. Recall we are thrown into the world without our knowledge, agreement or desire by sheer absurdity according to Heidegger?
Absurdity is also the critical concept in some Existentialism heralded by Kierkeggard, Heidegger and Camus for the beings.
Religious beliefs would only be upgraded into faith when one leaps into the unseen and unknown abyss into God which is beyond rational knowledge in the religious existentialism.
I think all Christians believe that this verse is not a metaphor. They believe that Jesus died on the Cross and rose from death. This verse together with other verses is paradoxical though.
I am not sure who all the Christians are. And are all the Christians same in their beliefs? Are all the Christians the genuine Christians? There might be folks who claim to be the Christians but turn out to be some business minded folks trying to make money off the followers. Who knows? Are you a Christian yourself? What do you feel about this point?
Quoting MoK
Do you believe it?
Quoting MoK
Paradoxical is used for the puzzles or linguistic problems which have no rational explanation for its contradiction. For example, this sentence is false. It is true if it is false, and false if it is true.
Absurdity is the description for the inexplicable situation from reality. It is difficult to understand, but it is still possible to make inference and assumptions on the matter.
The situation in the Bible is absurd, but not paradoxical. It can be interpreted and explained in some theological way, although it might not be rational as such, and it could be a metaphor. Or maybe God had his own ideas of doing things which human reason cannot decipher.
Due to the circumstantial situation of the stories in the Bible, no inference is right or wrong against them. One can accept the interpretation as reasonable or unreasonable on the basis of one's point of view. Does it make sense?
There are different branches of Christianity.
Quoting Corvus
There are genuine Christians.
Quoting Corvus
Maybe.
Quoting Corvus
I am not.
Quoting Corvus
Of course not. How could I believe something contrary?
So what's your answer to the following question? Is it a "yes", or is it a "no"?
Quoting Arcane Sandwich
I already answered that. It is contrary that God/Jesus is changeable and changeless simultaneously. Even if we accept this, according to the Bible God does not change so Jesus could not lose His divine nature. Therefore Kenosisism is wrong.
So Jesus can't walk from here to there, just like you and me, for example? He doesn't undergo change of location?
God cannot change therefore Jesus is not God.
Is Jesus God?
There are different interpretations of what it means to be one. In the development of Christian theology it has been understood to mean one and the same. The same ousia. The same being. The same essence. Homoousion.
This is not the only sense of what it means to be one. To be one is to be united. To stand together rather than opposed. One who knows the Law, one, who recites the Shema and understands it, would not hear the oneness of God and man with pagan ears. Nowhere in the Gospel of Matthew do we find anything other than the distinction between God the Father and Jesus, a "son of God".
It is only by a confluence of later influences that results in an abuse of logic that a son is his own father.
Without the assumption that the two, God and Jesus, are one and the same, the story can be read in a way that is perhaps closer to the original. It appears as if Jesus knew nothing of the apologetics of sin and sacrifice that were to emerge. Like with Job and Ecclesiastes God's will is inscrutable. Why a man who was believed by his followers to be the Messiah was put to death was for them unfathomable. But in the ways of man myths emerged to try and make sense of it.
Jesus as human cannot be God because He is subject to change.
Many things in life is contrary, but people believe them. Being contrary doesn't mean that you cannot believe it. Remember belief can be irrational, and psychological.
The saying in the quote is not a statement. It is in the form of question. He is asking questions. There is no truth or falsity in the question at all. He is asking someone to give him the answers for his question. It would be only true or false, if he said, " My God, You forsaken me."
I could not believe something contrary. I believe in all sorts of different things that I am not certain about but none of them are the contrary.
Quoting Corvus
Of course, I won't believe something contrary.
I don't think so. I think that question refers to a state of being abandoned by God.
We can only infer from the saying. It sounds like he himself didn't know. If he knew for sure, he wouldn't have asked. He would have made a statement.
How couldn't Jesus know that? He is God therefore omniscient.
Jesus was not a God. No one in human body is God.
Cool. So we are on the same page.
But was he not made into God when he resurrected after death?
What do you mean by making into God?
Many folks believe he is God. He doesn't seem to have had been God when he was alive. He was just an ordinary bloke. But when he died on the cross, and resurrected, he became God.
Ordinary folks don't resurrect after death. Only God can resurrect.
So He was not God when He was human?
Quoting Corvus
Now you are saying that He resurrected and He was God.
Quoting MoK
That is my inference.
Don't you see any contradiction in your conclusion?
It is not a conclusion. It is an inference.
It is perfectly reasonable inference, if you read any Hegel and knew about Dialectical Logic.
From daily life, it can be also reasoned. Things don't stay as they are. All things change with time and events in the world.
How do you know that He became God after the resurrection?
Is it not what the Bible says? That is one of the miracles what gives the ground for Christianity as a religion.
The Bible says that He resurrected and ascended to Heaven. I am not aware of any verse that says He became God.
Me neither. However, it seems perfectly plausible to make inference that he could only have resurrected and ascended to Heaven, because he became God after the resurrection.
I don't think so when there is no verse from the Bible to justify this.
But do you see the verse in the Bible that Jesus didn't become God after the resurrection and ascended to Heaven?
Ok, let's suppose he was not a God. How do you explain the resurrection and ascending to Heaven? Can ordinary blokes do that?
To resurrect from death, would you not need some assistance from the real God, and become some kind semi God or another God? To ascend to Heaven without being God, would you not need some sort of rocket device such as the SpaceX?
But it seems highly unlikely they had rocket device available to ascend to Heaven at the time. There must have been some sort of divine intervention, if it really happened. Would you not agree?
He either resurrected Himself or God did it. How could He resurrect Himself if He is dead? Therefore, it must be God who resurrected Jesus.
Sounds reasonable. If God can resurrect a dead man, he could also make him a junior God. Make sense?
God can make us Omniscient. Whether we can become Omnipresent is however the subject of discussion. That is a problem since there is no way to distinguish two entities if they are both Omnipresent. Whether two different Omnipresent entities can distinguish themselves from one another knowing that they both exit everywhere is the subject of discussion and contemplation (I am currently thinking about this). Becoming Omnipotent requires Omniscience and Omnipresence. Therefore we can become God if we can become Omnipresent.
Interesting claim indeed. How could we become omnipresent? And you believe God can make us Omniscient? What are your reasoning for the possibility? How could it be done?
Quoting MoK
Yes, I would be interested to know about your ideas on that.
Quoting MoK
Well if the omnipresent beings are not the space and time entities, then they won't need separate space and time, would they? Therefore it would depend on the fact whether the omnipresent beings are spacetime entities or not. If not, what would be the nature of their existence?
Well, God can teach us the truth so we can become Omniscient if knowledge is bound.
Quoting Corvus
I think two entities with the same sort of substance cannot occupy the same location. Therefore, two Omnipresent entities must have different substances.
Isn't this the whole trinity problem, as in how can one thing be three things at the same time? If you have truly seperate things, you have polytheism, which I think Christianity wants to deny, except for the Mormons, who just go ahead and accept the polytheism.
It is entirely possible that the theology just doesn't make sense at a basic level, which is a problem if you place a high value on making sense. I don't say that sarcastically because it is the case that (1) many people do get great fulfillment through Christianity, and (2) Christianity doesn't make sense at a basic logical level and it is also based upon a false factual narrative. This isn't me picking on Christianity. I think the same problem arises in most if not all religions.
Living life based upon the dictates of scientific reason, empirically verified information, and logical truth is a personal choice, and it's not necessarily the only good choice.
My point is simply that the passage you have located that gives you trouble is doubtfully going to be the only one, and the obvious conclusion you will be forced to reach is that the hodgepodge of beliefs that have been handed down since antiquity will not be consistent, will be obviously false, and some will not make any logical sense based upon an analysis. The question is what do you do now that you've realized the obvious?
Quoting Hanover
God, like the universe and all that occurs within it, is beyond our understanding. God is understood as being both transcendent and immanent. A "God" that falls within our rational understanding would be an act of hubris effectively placing ourselves as judges and evaluators of God.
Quoting Hanover
We are commanded to choose life, and if empiricism and rationalism aren't directing towards those ends we must look elsewhere.
I don't know that it follows that an understanding of something dictates that we be judges of that thing. I also don't know why a religion couldn't hold that humans have the ability to understand God. I'm not saying your views aren't valid, but I don't think your description of religion is necessary. If you're going to allow that religion be beyond empirical and rational discovery, you've sort of opened the door to the concept of us each having our personal religion else how else do you intend to persuade me to your position?
That is, I fully accept that there are those who reject religion outright and would not find any greater happiness turning their brains off to scientific reasons just due to the fact that they're not wired that way. It's for that reason that I find proselytizing offensive, as it fails to take seriously someone else's justified rejection of that viewpoint.
I'd also admit as well that my objections to proselytizing are rooted in my religion, which forbids it and openly discourages conversion to it. This admission is just to state the obvious, which is that social norms are learned and gathered from the community at large, which none of us have ever avoided, regardless of how free thinking you might be. Everyone has drunk the Kool-aid. I advocate for choosing the flavor that you like best.
It's obviously in direct conflict with the gospel of John in which Jesus is calm and prescient all the time. John was written later and reflects the idea that Jesus was the Son of God. That's all Neoplatonic, Stoic stuff. The original Jesus was obviously just a prophet associated with the Essenes.
My point is that one might say that they know goodness or that they know justice, which, since they know, means that they can tell when things meet or don't mean those qualities. We can judge others e.g. when they're bad. But to judge God is a different matter. So the biblical worldview requires humility. An understanding that we don't have the 30,000 foot view.
Quoting Hanover
God provides divine revelation in the bible that we can all work with. E.g. he interacts directly with Moses and reveals things to him. If he were to speak to one of us directly that's another matter. Perhaps he does reveal things through dreams. There is the bible and the covenant and then there is our personal experiences with the "divine." I don't see a conflict unless one's personal visions or experiences are telling one that the covenant is null and void.
The fact that Jesus was abandoned is against Trinity doctrine. There is a problem with this doctorine as you mentioned.
Quoting Hanover
Mormons believe that they become God after they resurrect if they fulfill the conditions. Jesus however believed to be God while He was human.
Quoting Hanover
Correct.
Quoting Hanover
I spread what I think is correct.
You claimed you are an atheist. If God doesn't exist, how could he teach you to become omniscient?
Quoting MoK
What would the different substances be in their nature?
Never did I claim such a thing.
Quoting Corvus
Different substances are different in their essences.
I thought you did. Maybe it was someone else. My sincere apologies for mistaking your religious stance. So are you a Christian?
Quoting MoK
Of course, they would be different in some ways. What would be the difference be? Or different essences, if you prefer?
No problem mate! :)
Quoting Corvus
I am undecided about believing in God. The same applies to life after death. I have to face these to be certain.
Quoting Corvus
Yes.
Job 9:19 to 9:24.
19 If it is a matter of strength, [God] is mighty!
And if it is a matter of justice, who can challenge him?
20 Even if I were innocent, my mouth would condemn me;
if I were blameless, it would pronounce me guilty.
21 Although I am blameless,
I have no concern for myself;
I despise my own life.
22 It is all the same; that is why I say,
He destroys both the blameless and the wicked.
23 When a scourgel brings sudden death,
he mocks the despair of the innocent.
24 When a land falls into the hands of the wicked,
he blindfolds its judges.
If it is not he, then who is it?"
Psalm of David, 22:1:
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from my cries of anguish?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
You'll have to define "directly." The text references God speaking to Moses, but not all traditions accept that God actually speaks in a physical sense, particularly Orthodox Judaism that rejects any suggestion that God is corporeal and actually speaks.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
You'll have to define "humility" here. The Christian concept of humility that centers around meekness and the fallen state of the soul is very different from Judaic concepts of humility which do not hold meekness a virtue nor that the soul of man is inherently flawed and in need of salvation.
My point isn't really though just to get into a back and forth about what the Bible says, but it's just to point out that it means very different things to different people and its meaning and use has changed over time. Our use of the Bible today as a definitive documentation of social norms is not the way it has always been used, but is a product of societal decisions and changes.
It's for that reason I have a problem when someone wants to declare its universal, non-contextualized meaning. It means different things to different traditions, and I understand each tradition wants to declare theirs correct, but I don't think there's a solid basis for that.
:pray: :smile:
Quoting MoK
You made clear that you are not an atheist. So, the choice for you seems to be between being an agnostic and theist.
Quoting MoK
What are the two essences in nature and character, and how are they different?
It's normal to question and wrestle with God. Misfortune does befall the righteous. Who are we to say that God is wrong though? Or that we know "the good" better than Him. That's the point Job is making. Our epistemic perspective is too limited to judge with such finality.
Job cries out to God in anguish. He curses the day he was born. Job never says that God is unjust or bad for the misfortune that befell him. He suffers acceptably.
Quoting Hanover
Judaism rejects the corporeality of God. Regarding whether God makes verbal utterances we'd need to go the text on that one. I'm fairly certain he's described in the Bible as having a voice and I've never heard of any branch officially denying that he makes verbal utterances but I could be wrong.
Quoting Hanover
I meant epistemic humility, as demonstrated through the book of Job.
Quoting Hanover
The Bible is multi-vocal (I'm partial to the documentary hypothesis). I'm more comfortable analyzing e.g. common themes across a single book. Yet I do believe there are patterns that emerge more generally, e.g. the cycle of Israel straying, getting punished, and then repenting.
I'm fine if people want to view the bible in different ways. I love analyzing the historicity of it. I'm happy to enter into discussions on that topic. I also love the bible as a work of literature and as a self-help book. It also has love poetry. And theodicy. There are still better and worse interpretations despite the fact that it can be viewed through various lenses. Judge the commentary through the lens it seeks to approach the bible through.
I think it's a strength that people view it in different ways. Bible studies has become much more multidisciplinary over the past few decades and professionals from many different fields contribute to our knowledge of the bible.
If you believed in Science, then life after death looks unlikely. But from the religious point of view, and some QM ideas, life after death seems a possibility. How and to what would be subject to depending on which religion and QM theories we are talking about of course.
I think agnostic is the correct term for me.
Quoting Corvus
An essence to me describes what makes a thing what it is. Essence is about whatness.
What are the essences of the God who made Jesus into another God? And what are the essences of the God Jesus?
God and Jesus accepting that Jesus is God have different substances. Their substances differ because their essences are different.
How are the substances different?
We say that two substances are intrinsically different when they have different essences.
So you think that people make up the gospel of John, which is not what Jesus said.
Of course they are different essences, but the question is in what way they are different. Aren't there any details of the properties between the different essences?
Of course.
Jesus became "truly" known as Son of God after Saul/Paul had the epiphany on the road to Damascus, which led him to realize that he could quell the dispute between Jews and Christians, and cease the unnecessary persecutions, by asserting that Jesus actually is the Son of God. This way the past actions of both Christians and Jews could be correct and justified, Christians in claiming Jesus is Son of God, and Jews in crucifying Jesus for claiming to be Son of God.
There's one slight glitch to that scheme. Careful reading of the gospels will reveal that Jesus claimed himself to be Son of Man rather than Son of God. So Saul/Paul's interference actually marks the corruption of Christianity by allowing it to be subsumed by the evil which it rebelled against.
Two substances could have different essences. Two substances could have the same essence but different properties, such as location. Two Omnipresent substances however have to have different essences if all their other properties are the same.
Okay, that is one acceptable scenario. Another acceptable scenario is that Jesus never said those words when He was on the cross. So who knows!?
How could He be the Son of Man if Mary is accepted to be a virgin?
Some people thought he was calling for John the Baptist. Can't remember which gospel says that. One of them.
Here again, your understanding on "essence" seems to be wrong. The essence of God means all the attributes that make God for what the God is. You should have listed all the attributes or properties what make the God Jesus, and also the God who created the world.
The question was looking for the details of the attributes and properties for those Gods.
Yep
Christians rationalize this as the product of his human nature. That human nature could experience real human suffering, without which there could be no atonement.
A more objective view would treat this as evidence the author of Mark didn't view Jesus as being truly one with God. Luke chose to put different last words in Jesus' mouth: "Into your hands, I commend my spirit".
Ok.
To me, two things help us distinguish objects from each other: essence and attributes. Essence is about what an object isattribute however allows us to distinguish objects that have the same essence.
Quoting Corvus
The main attributes of God are Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent.
Interesting. Thanks for quoting the verse.
Could you have used the word "property" or "attribute" rather than "essence"? I am sure the concept "essence" can mean different things.
Quoting MoK
Herein arises questions. You claimed that you are an agnostic. If you don't know if God exists, then how do you know what God is, and how do you know God is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent?
Are you able to know the properties of God without knowing if God exists, or what God means?
It depends on what you mean by properties and attributes.
Quoting Corvus
Yes, philosophers define essence differently.
Quoting Corvus
These are what people believe.
Quoting Corvus
Of course, not.
Who are the "people"?
Quoting MoK
If you are an agnostic, shouldn't you try to prove on the existence of God? Talking about the properties of God gave a strong indication that you are not an agnostic.
Believer of God.
Quoting Corvus
I don't think that is a valid and sound argument for the existence of God.
Quoting Corvus
No, I just mentioned what people believe.
I wasn't arguing anything at all. I was just asking you a question.
Ok, I hope things are clear now.
It is clear you haven't answered the question.
What is the question that I didn't answer?
The question was, shouldn't you try to prove the existence of God before discussing about the property of God? Have you proved the existence of God?
The proof of God is not the subject of this thread. The main purpose of this thread is to point out the conflict between different verses from the Bible, accepting they are right.
Sure, but the suggestion was, wouldn't it be logical to come to some form of demonstration or proof on the existence of God, before going into pointing out the conflicts in the Bible?
When no one knows if God exists, or even what God is, then how could we discuss on the conflicts in the Bible which are supposed to be what God had said and did? It was just a suggestion in the form of question.
Belief is either based on reason or faith. People have faith in God and believe that the Bible is the word of God regardless of whether there is a reason for it or not.
OK, fair enough. However, if you say your concept of God is based on faith, and you believe God exists from your faith, then the whole discussion would turn to a religious nature. This is The Philosophy Forum. In philosophy, we discuss the topics based on mainly reason, not faith.
If something doesn't make sense in logic and reasoning, we discard them and reject them as falsity. We only accept what makes sense and logical, and we try to achieve clarify in our claims and arguments via critical reasoning and logical investigations and analysis on the claims in philosophy.
We cannot seek to resolve the conflicts in the bible based on the rational or logical basis, if you insist the OP is a religious topic purely based on blind faith.
You say, well this is what God intended to do, he had said this and this, done and this and that, and they all sounds impossible and contradictory. But you must trust them, no matter how absurd and nonsensical they sound, because by faith everything in the Bible is true. So must you and you and him and her. Amen. That is not then philosophy is it? It is a religion. Hallelujah.
I use reason to discuss religious concepts. The religious concepts are based on the scriptures, in this case, the Bible. I reason that the doctrine of the Trinity is problematic, accepting the verses of the Bible to be true. As far as I can tell, this is a part of the philosophy of religion.
But you said Quoting MoK
That sound totally inconsistent and contradiction from your previous post. If the discussions are based on reason, then we must ask all the unclear parts with the topic and following arguments. You shouldn't be afraid of facing the questions and answering them in rational and logical manner. Bringing out beliefs and faiths of other folks for the evidence of the existence of God appears to be the act of the avoiding the rational investigation into the matter on this topic.
I am simply saying that having faith based on the Bible is not reasonable because the verses contradict each other. People believe in all sorts of religions. Any religion introduces a set of concepts, like God and his attributes. There are conflicts between different religions and this is not the subject of this thread. The subject of this thread is about the conflicts between different verses of the Bible that Christians believe to be true.
What is God? Is the name of God, God? All the Gods have their names, so what is the names of God in the Bible? If the God has no name, then is it a God? Does God sometimes abandon his/her followers? Why? etc etc.
God, at least within Abrahamic religions, is defined as the creator of everything. Christians believe that God is a trion, three united persons. Muslims and Jews disagree with the concept of the Trinity though.
Quoting Corvus
In the Old Testament God introduced itself as "I am that I am". In Christianity, God is three persons, Father, Jesus, and Holy Spirit. God is called Allah in Islam.
Quoting Corvus
Not according to what I am aware of.
One reason we are not going to do better than all those who have preceded us is that 2000 years of thinking and believing have washed up on our shores much to our good (or not). Some of our predecessors developed penetrating insights into the nature of biblical texts also to our benefit.
Shakespeare died 409 years ago, and there is nothing new and sensible to say about his plays: It's all been said several times over by generations of PhD students toiling away on the doctorates in English Literature. The chance that someone will discover significant information previously unknown about the Gospels is vanishingly small. As small is the possibility that someone will come up with a good idea about interpreting the Gospels nobody has thought of already. UNLESS, of course, they hatch out some total bullshit.
That said, scholarship in well-plowed fields remains worth while, because learning to plow is still a good idea.
That is obviously your narrative, but not the only one that would flow from that.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
You only go to the text to search for literal meaning if you think that literal meaning of the text is truth. Liberal traditions view the text as allegorical and orthoodox traditions consider many passages as entirely metaphorical. Orthodox Jews, for example, reject the notion that God speaks in a literal sense (because he has no vocal cords, for example) even though the text references speaking, and they do not consider the written text as a stand alone single source document of authority unimpacted by oral tradition.
See:
"Maimonides thus contends that even the greatest of all prophets, Moses, through whose agency Israel received the Torah and the mitzvot, did not really hear a voice speaking to him in the inner sanctum of the mik?n. The Torah is not to be taken literally when it speaks of a divine voice emanating from between two cherubs on the ark cover. The notion of a talking God is for the enlightened as preposterous as the idea of a God possessing form or composed of matter."
https://www.thetorah.com/article/the-lord-spoke-to-moses-does-god-speak#:~:text=Maimonides%20thus%20contends%20that%20even,inner%20sanctum%20of%20the%20mi%C5%A1k%C4%81n.
The meaning of certain passages varies significantly depending upon tradition. Christianity finds foreshadowing and references to Jesus in the Hebrew bible, where other traditions do not.
The point here isn't to reject any one particular interpretation of the Bible, but it's to point out that anyone who says "this is what the Bible means" is asserting an ideology, even if that ideology is that Bible is just an over-rated meandering of stories.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Is this humility of understanding peculiar to the Bible or is something that you'd assert exists with any ancient writing? Claiming that the Bible is shrouded in some degree of mystery incapable of full understanding suggests an ideological bent toward the divine nature of the book, which would be a religious assertion particular to certain traditions.
"I am that I am" doesn't sound like a proper name. It sounds more like, "I think therefore I am.". Is it not a statement, that he is the one who exists? If it is what God said, then should he not given out why it is the case he exists?
Quoting MoK
But the OP is about the case that Jesus was claiming that he was being abandoned by God. Was Jesus claiming something which is not the case? Or perhaps sometimes God abandons folks, if he has some pre-planned mysterious intentions?
If I recall correctly that was God's answer when Moses asked what is your name.
Quoting Corvus
Jesus is believed to be God and not a follower of God according to Christians.
Quoting Corvus
Perhaps. I am not aware of any other verse that says that God abandoned His believers though. Some people believe that the verse was not the actual thing that Jesus said when He was on the Cross.
"I am that I am." also sounds something is missing in the statement. You say, "I am at the starbucks", or I am in the kitchen. Then the other party will ask you, I meant which country? And you would say, "I am in California, USA near the beach, or Tokyo Japan, near Deigoku Hotel". You don't say "I am that I am." :roll:
But from my memory of flicking through the Bible long time ago, everyone in the books was addressing the God as "God". And "I am that I am." doesn't sound like a proper name of someone at all to me.
Exodus 3:13-14: "13 Moses said to God, Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, The God of your fathers has sent me to you, and they ask me, What is his name? Then what shall I tell them?
14 God said to Moses, I am who I am.[a] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: I am has sent me to you."
Ok. And what of a tradition which finds Justin Bieber referenced throughout the entire Bible? My question is: Are all interpretations equally valid/equally grounded in a reasonable interpretation of Scripture? Scripture that was written in a certain time and place.
Of course not. So some interpretations/meanings are better than others. Several can hold insofar as they don't contradict each other. For instance one could give a historical analysis of text while another could provide a theological analysis. Both can work and actually supplement the other.
I agree this quote is too broad. But certain passages and events are fairly straight-forward and historical.
Quoting Hanover
It's the message of Job; take it or leave it.
The eating of the apple as being the impetus for God to cause Mary's immaculate impregnation so she could give birth to a messiah to rid mankind of all its inherented sin is no more or less a better interpretation than positing it means Justin Beiber is God if one thinks the text is what is to be referred to for interpretation.
But not to pick in Christianity, Jewish midrashim are stories built seemingly from scratch in efforts to interpret biblical passages.
https://jewishcurrents.org/midrash-the-stories-we-tell
And not to pick on religion. Did you know that for 50 years, the following meant that a woman had diminishing rights to abortion based upon a trimester framework?
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
We establish an authority and then we attribute our norms to that authority.
I am not a Christian.
Midrash is a very vast genre. A satisfactory discussion of it would be beyond our purview. I would not dismiss all midrash as fiction either. In any case, Jewish biblical interpretation takes many forms and thinkers like Ibn Ezra and Nachmanides are well-respected in academic biblical scholarship.
I'm not in the habit of dismissing any group's oral tradition that contains hundreds of texts compiled over many centuries spanning thousands of years of that group's history. Rabbinic tradition contains extensive biblical exegesis that contains various levels of analysis. My own approach is more based in academia but there is much in Jewish texts that is of academic value.
Quoting MoK
Here, the premise, " if He and God are one", seems not true. He and God are not one obviously. I know you would say, well the Bible says that. But you must not take everything what the Bible says as truth. Because clearly there are lots of contradictions in what it says, and if A is true, then ~A is not true must be the rule of your reasoning. Would you not agree?
In order for you come up with the premise, you must have demonstrated in logical manner what "A and B are one" implies here. He and God are one? In what way do you think it is the case?
Bear in mind, "because the Bible says so", is not a clever or intelligible answer in The Philosophical Forum, and won't be accepted as a meaningful statement or answer.
Or maybe they are one but Jesus has never said those words. So who knows!? Other books of the Bible mention that Jesus said other things when He was on the Cross. I can find it for you if you are interested.
Quoting Corvus
That means that the Bible is not the words of God. I have no problem with this but Christians do not agree with this.
Quoting Corvus
I have a problem with the Trinity doctrine. Trinity is a doctrine in which there are three persons, each has their own consciousness and identity yet are not separate beings. I don't think that is possible. They may be united in a sense but that is not what Christians believe. Here I am not discussing the Trinity doctrine but arguing that that Jesus cannot be abandoned if we accept the doctrine of the Trinity.
By all means please. Thank you for your offer.
Quoting MoK
Their point of view on the matter would be more faith based system, which will not go well with rational arguments, I would guess.
Quoting MoK
I am not familiar with the detail of the theological side of the arguments. But you, as a confessed agnostic, seem to be very much familiar with the theological theories and knowledge, which gives impression that sometime in the past, you might have been a faithful and loyal Christian who attended church studying the doctrine.
Luke 23:46: "Jesus called out with a loud voice, Father, into your hands I commit my spirit. When he had said this, he breathed his last." So according to Luke 23:46, these words are the last words that Jesus said. According to Matthew 27:46-50, Jesus's last words were the verse which is the subject of discussion of this thread.
Quoting Corvus
They have all sorts of arguments for the existence of God. I can recall a few names such as Aquinas, Anselm, and Augustine as theologians and philosophers. Anselm's argument for the existence of God is already the subject of a thread in this forum. I wanted to get involved in that discussion but unfortunately, my time was short.
Quoting Corvus
I was just discussing different topics with Catholics a long time ago. The knowledge that I gathered is the result of my discussion with them.
:up: :pray:
Quoting MoK
Going back to Trinity, it seems to have some logical problems. Saying that three entities are one is like saying 3 =1 or 1+1+1 = 1, which is not true.
In the bible God is also depicted as Father, and Jesus as son. According to Trinity, it implies The father is also the son, the son is the father and spirit.
A father cannot be his own son, and a son cannot be his own father.
Also two different bodies cannot share the same mind. Because all mind is absolutely private to its owner. If spirit in Trinity meant mental entity in nature, then it is a categorical error to say that two different people or bodies or entities share the same spirit (mind).
It is not like that. Christians are aware of this and they distinguish between persons of the Trinity and God's essence. I invite you to read this article if you are interested in the topic.
It is saying, 3 is 1 and 3 is not 1.
A ^ ~A :chin:
This was taken as referring to the fact that God (and God alone) is subsistent being (everything else being contingent and relying on God as its ground, even things like number, shapes, etc., which are not entirely intelligible in themselves, but only as a part of the entire Logos). Psalm 139 is often interpreted in this way as well. It is God alone who most properly is, ipsum esse subsitens. Likewise, it is God, as universal ground and source of being in who "we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28).
While such an interpretation is now sometimes presented as being "medieval scholastic innovation," generally by those with an anti-philosphical bent, or particularly "Roman Catholic," one can find it in the earliest Christian commentaries on Exodus (e.g. Origen, the Cappadocians, etc ) and in earlier Jewish commentaries (e.g. Philo), and its suggested more explicitly in some of the later Biblical literature included in the Septuagint.
"Three hypostases, one (unknowable) essence." God's essence is not known, only the divine energies.
Theothanatology
The figure seems to be saying now 4 is 1 and 4 is not 1.
God, Father, Son, The Holy Spirit
Isn't it still A^~A ? :chin: :smile:
Looking at it more closely, the circles must have no connections where the paths are "Is Not".
Connecting them with the paths and making to appear as if they are connected seems to be the problem here.
"Is not" is not "Is".
Quoting MoK
it clearly seems to indicate and prove that He and God are not one. Therefore Trinity doctrine is false?
I already answered that. According to Aquinas, there is a difference between persons of the Trinity and God's essence. I am not saying that his argument is objection-free, but saying that any valid objection requires a good understanding of the terms he uses. He is saying that three conscious persons build the Trinity, namely Father (who is the highest according to Jesus and this is problematic), Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. These three persons, however, share the same essence, which means each person is God yet different from the other persons.
Oh, I was not aware of that interpretation. I, however, disagree that numbers, truth, etc. are contingent things.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
How could that, ipsum esse subsitens, be a good interpretation of Psalm 139? I am familiar with Aquinas's argument that God's essence and existence are one.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
It is off-topic, but I think people often confuse God, the creator, with the Mind, an omnipresent, changeless entity that experiences and causes.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
I was not aware of them. Thanks for letting us know.
What do you mean?
Yes, if we accept that those words were the last ones Jesus said.
"share the same essence" sounds unclear here. If MoK and John share the same essence which is human, has minds, 2 arms and 2 legs, does it mean MoK is John? Are they the same being? :chin:
They are clearly different beings, but saying they are one is a contradiction. Even if John and MoK are humans, they are different, and they are not one. MoK is Mok, and John is John.
Even if it is a theological doctrine, should it not abide by the Law of Identity and Law of Noncontradiction in the doctrine? If any doctrine is based on ignoring these laws, then it cannot be a doctrine. It would be a religious dogma.
It's seen as supporting the thesis that God is always everywhere, all at once, and so not a thing within space and time.
As I mentioned Aquinas makes a distinction between persons of the Trinity and essence. You need to familiarize yourself with the concepts of person and essence before you can attack it.
I still don't understand how the fact that God is His own essence means that God is always everwhere.
I was not attacking, but asking about it. Could we not discuss the points based on the natural logic and reasoning? Why Aquinas? We are not going to accept his doctrines if they are based on A <> A and A^~A, are we?
As I mentioned Aquinas distinguish between persons and essence.
Do you agree with him?
I cannot find a flaw in his argument. Could you? I am not saying that I agree with his metaphysics though but that is a different topic.
I do find serious flaws in the claim, when it says, just because MoK has the same essence as John i.e. being human, MoK and John is one. I would point out, MoK is Mok, and John is John. They are two, not one.
Jesus represented a mortal avatar of gods grace more or less.
MoK and John have the same essence by this I mean they both are made of matter. They however have different properties so they are different.
:up:
This goes back almost 1,000 years earlier too, and was the orthodox position prior to schism between the Orthodox and Catholic churches (both still affirm it).
The idea that God the Father alone is uncreated and that the Son and Spirit are creatures or emanations was rejected. This shows up most notably in the Arian Heresy (there were other subordinationist heresies too though). The idea that there is just one God and that God merely appears in different modes, essentially different masks, were the various modalist heresies. The Nestorian Heresy is somewhat related too, but that deals with the Incarnations' natures.
This becomes definitive with the Council of Nicaea (325), but it is an issue in earlier councils and defended and fleshed out in later ones.
I will offer an explanatory example, although I will caution that it is not perfect. In the semiotic relation as conceived by St. Augustine (and which still underpins semiotics to this day) there are three things going on in any sign (and presumably in anything that means anything to anyone at all).
We have the knower, what is known, and the means by which knowing takes place (i.e., the "sign" vehicle or word/logos, although not all signs are linguistic obviously). In C.S. Peirce this is object/sign vehicle/interpretant. St. Augustine does a ton with these triads in De Trinitate, particularly how they show up in the human mind and experience. One can even see a sort of implicit mapping of:
Father - ground of being, what is known
Son/Logos - the means by which the ground is known, the mediator
Holy Spirit - that which knows, or "the knowledge" (this hypostatic abstraction in "Thirdness" shows up in Peirce too).
A key idea in semiotics, at least classically, is that the sign is irreducibly triadic. You cannot decompose it; if you do you will no longer be considering a sign. Each part is only what it is in virtue of being part of the whole.
Is this a good analogy for God as classically conceived? Perhaps not if we aren't very careful, but there are useful similarities. The sign is all three components; there is just one substance here. Each part is what it is in virtue of being a sign. Likewise, each person (hypostasis) of the Trinity, Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, is God essentially, and the Trinity is not decomposable into discrete "parts of God." Nevertheless, we can speak of each person individually, and their differences, just as we can speak of each part of the sign and its relations, while still affirming that they are one thing, and that each is defined in terms of being one thing. This is as opposed to three separable things making up a whole that is the sum of its parts. (This is also how St. Thomas sees cause and effect BTW, a cause is a cause in virtue of having effects, but it is ontologically prior as in Avicenna).
In his commentary on Boethius's De Trinitate, St. Thomas introduces an act of the intellect called separation. Separation lets us consider things apart that are never actually apart, for instance a man without flesh and bones, things without their per se accidents, etc. Theology is concerned with things without motion and which are separable and abstract (for the substance of God lacks both matter and motion).
The difference crops up in the fact that each hypostasis is said to be "fully God" or to possess the "fullness of God." How to understand this? Well, each shares in an undivided (and undividable, because infinite) omnipotence, etc. God is said to have one will. St. Thomas follows St. John of Damascus here: "operation of the will is consequent upon [the entity's] nature" and God has one nature. God's will and intellect are the same as God's essence, and not divided.
"But," you might ask, "what about 'not my will but yours (Luke 22:42)?" Well, the Incarnation, the fullness of the Son/Logos dwelling in flesh, involves two natures (human and divine), and so two wills. This is spiritually important because it points to the deification of man through this mediation, Christ as the "firstborn among many brothers and sisters," (Romans 8:29) who shall be "conformed to the image of his Son" and "glorified." As St. Athanasius puts it: "God became man that man might become God" (St. Thomas affirms this with his: "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."
The monotheletist heresy, anathematized at the Third Council of Constantinople, rejects the "two wills." Anyhow, interesting tidbit, this is represented in the making of the Sign of the Cross. It is done with three fingers for the three hypostases, and two (ring finger and pinky) tucked in for the two natures in Christ. You will often see old art with Saints holding up their hands in this manner. There is also a different hand signal for priests blessings, thumb to ringfinger.
Just setting the record straight.
Thank you very much for your post. It refreshed my memory of things I read a long time ago, almost ten years ago, if not longer. I read your post once but I need to read it more to reflect properly and give a proper response.
Isn't YHWH a name of God?
Yeah, but isn't Allah a name of God, also?
Either way, Hebrews never recognized Jesus as the king of Jews, and never would. For which he was crucified.
Ok, I see.
So we can conclude that Jesus and God is not one.
From the discussions so far, it seems to be safe to conclude that,
1) Jesus was not God. He doesn't appear to be omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. If he was, then he could not be in the situation he was, and would not have said what the OP noted.
2) Jesus was not one with God. Therefore Trinity doctrine is unsound and invalid.
I've been reading Aquinas's treatise on the Trinity today and it resonates with how my mind interacts with itself. It seems the left hemisphere is Father, right is Son, and center "eye" is that which is spirated (love). I easily can be confused about who i am *by* this of course, or *inspite* of this.
Maybe the doctrine transcends human language and logic? If it resonates with you, then I would guess that your consciousness operates in different domain.
It is a mystery to us how we are able to KNOW anything. Despite that we seek to summarize everything in a tight, simple bit of KNOWLEDGE, that we can put into pithy arguments.
Now you do so with "Trinity doctrine".
Any arguments summarizing anything we know are formed in mysterious ways. Yet it continues to be easy to allow ourselves to draw such concrete conclusion about OTHER things, such as what "Trinity" is (be it valid or sound, or conceivable, or not), while remaining utterly inconclusive about what it means to KNOW anything.
One step at a time.
Of course the Trinity is invalid to any linear, logical scrutiny - logic only sees one thing at a time.
Knowledge comes from the empirical observation and internal reasoning. The laws of thought tells us what is truth and falsity on the contents of our perceptions.
No, as I mentioned, the persons of the Trinity are different from God's essence. I already cited an article on the topic if you are interested in reading more, as I cannot summarize the discussion on this topic shortly. @Count Timothy von Icarus summarized and discussed the idea in a relatively short post here.
Do you agree Jesus doesn't have God's essence from the OP's implication?
Quoting MoK
If you are looking at the issue from general logic, then you could. You don't want to dip into the water of theology, because there is no general logic in there. If you want to bring in the traditional theology into the discussion, then we need to discuss in the domain of faith then, which transcends general logic, needn't we?
If those words were the last words that Jesus said then yes, Jesus and God are not one.
Quoting Corvus
No, I cannot. The concept of Christian God has been the subject of discussion by several important scholars for about 1000 years. It is not possible to summarize their works in a short post. I already cited Aquinas's article on the subject of the Trinity. Did you read it? I also suggested you read the post of @Count Timothy von Icarus. Did you read it?
Quoting MoK
Well, MoK, if you agreed that Jesus and God is not one, then you must be in agreement that Trinity is an invalid doctrine. That gives us a logical consequence and entailment, that Aquinas is also invalid. Why would you keep reading and dragging it further?
I agree partly. If those words were said by Jesus before His death then Jesus and God are not one. Whether the doctrine of the Trinity is logically coherent is another topic though but let's put this aside and say that we agree.