• frank
    16.4k
    So you think that people make up the gospel of John,MoK

    Of course.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.4k
    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.frank

    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.
  • MoK
    861
    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?Corvus
    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.
  • MoK
    861
    Of course.frank
    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!?
  • MoK
    861
    Careful reading of the gospels will reveal that Jesus claimed himself to be Son of Man rather than Son of God.Metaphysician Undercover
    How could He be the Son of Man if Mary is accepted to be a virgin?
  • frank
    16.4k
    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!?MoK

    Some people thought he was calling for John the Baptist. Can't remember which gospel says that. One of them.
  • Corvus
    4.1k
    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.MoK

    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.
  • Relativist
    2.8k
    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?MoK
    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".
  • MoK
    861
    Some people thought he was calling for John the Baptist. Can't remember which gospel says that. One of them.frank
    Ok.
  • MoK
    861
    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.Corvus
    To me, two things help us distinguish objects from each other: essence and attributes. Essence is about what an object is—attribute however allows us to distinguish objects that have the same essence.

    The question was looking for the details of the attributes and properties for those Gods.Corvus
    The main attributes of God are Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent.
  • MoK
    861

    Interesting. Thanks for quoting the verse.
  • Corvus
    4.1k
    To me, two things help us distinguish objects from each other: essence and attributes. Essence is about what an object is—attribute however allows us to distinguish objects that have the same essence.MoK
    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.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?
  • MoK
    861
    Could you have used the word "property" or "attribute" rather than "essence"?Corvus
    It depends on what you mean by properties and attributes.

    I am sure the concept "essence" can mean different things.Corvus
    Yes, philosophers define essence differently.

    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?Corvus
    These are what people believe.

    Are you able to know the properties of God without knowing if God exists, or what God means?Corvus
    Of course, not.
  • Corvus
    4.1k
    These are what people believe.MoK
    Who are the "people"?

    Of course, not.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.
  • MoK
    861
    Who are the "people"?Corvus
    Believer of God.

    If you are an agnostic, shouldn't you try to prove on the existence of God?Corvus
    I don't think that is a valid and sound argument for the existence of God.

    Talking about the properties of God gave a strong indication that you are not an agnostic.Corvus
    No, I just mentioned what people believe.
  • Corvus
    4.1k
    I don't think that is a valid and sound argument for the existence of God.MoK

    I wasn't arguing anything at all. I was just asking you a question.
  • MoK
    861
    I wasn't arguing anything at all. I was just asking you a question.Corvus
    Ok, I hope things are clear now.
  • Corvus
    4.1k
    Ok, I hope things are clear now.MoK

    It is clear you haven't answered the question.
  • MoK
    861
    It is clear you haven't answered the question.Corvus
    What is the question that I didn't answer?
  • Corvus
    4.1k
    What is the question that I didn't answer?MoK

    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?
  • MoK
    861
    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?Corvus
    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.
  • Corvus
    4.1k
    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.MoK

    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.
  • MoK
    861
    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.
    Corvus
    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.
  • Corvus
    4.1k
    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.MoK

    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.
  • MoK
    861
    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.Corvus
    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.
  • Corvus
    4.1k
    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.MoK

    But you said
    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.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.
  • MoK
    861

    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.
  • Corvus
    4.1k
    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.
  • MoK
    861
    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?
    Corvus
    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?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.

    Does God sometimes abandon his/her followers?Corvus
    Not according to what I am aware of.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.