E
estesbob
Guest
You talking about ME!?
- Status
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Then it is your solemn responsibility to tell us what reasons you have for believing that Peter was mistaken, Mir. For what you believe does not tell us whether your beliefs are true. Why you believe is what we need to hear. What evidence do you present to show the accused should be tried for the crime of being deceived into thinking his good friend is still alive to this very day?
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect… .
– Peter (1 Peter 3:15)
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
LOL! No, estesbob, we are discussing whether Peter was mad as a hatter. (Read the rest of the replies, please.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
If you cannot present any grounds to question Peter’s state of mind, then we must take JM’s evidence into account. We must say there is a reasonable doubt to find him guilty of not being in his right mind. If you have no objection, Mir, we shall cross this charge against the accused off our list, at least for now.
*]-]He was insane/-]
*]He was deceived
*]-]He knew he was not telling the truth/-]
*]He knew he was telling the truth
That leaves us with only two possibilities: (2) and (4). We might revisit (1) if we discover some new proof that he was, indeed, a mad man.
So, then, i think our investigation is going along at a wonderfully good clip! At this rate we will release him a free man or have him arrested on the charge of unintentional deception by this time tomorrow.
What do you have to say in support of (2), Mir. Why do you believe Peter was deceived? What explanation can you give that would convince a jury of his piers?
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
**Wonders why **Laurence of PA and MerryAtheist haven’t replied.
http://www.edwards-associates.co.uk/arrow3.gif
http://www.edwards-associates.co.uk/arrow3.gif
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
We should not forget Peter’s testimony, either:
“Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God.”(Acts 4:19)Peter said this to men who were threatening to end his life for preaching about Jesus. He was not one to give into peer pressure or flippantly disobey God by propagating a myth.
M
Mirdath
Guest
"jmcrae:
Socrates4Jesus:
Fact: people die, whether through old age, sickness, or trauma.
Fact: people generally do not recover from this ailment.
Fact: people actually getting better after dying is unprecedented.
What on earth makes you think that ‘hey guys, this Peter, he says his buddy got better after being crucified and buried for three days!’ wouldn’t get him laughed out of the room by a bunch of Galilean fishermen?
If Woody Allen had been the MC every time the Apostles got up to preach, Christianity would have died right there. Fortunately for it, he wasn’t, and they had the kind of charisma and dedication to pull it off – in some places. It didn’t play well everywhere.
Further:
Fact: people possess a human nature.
Fact: if there is a deity, it possesses a divine nature.
Therefore: possession of a human nature indicates humanity; possession of a divine nature indicates divinity.
Therefore: possession of a human nature, ie being human, precludes the possibility that one is in fact divine; and the same for possession of a divine nature.
Therefore: possession of two natures, or of a compound nature both divine and human, is a paradox.
Sorry, Aquinas, it just doesn’t work that way. Sure, you can take the hypostatic union on faith, but faith doesn’t get jurors to vote, or at least it shouldn’t. If Jesus is a man, there is no paradox; if he is God, there is similarly none – but if he is both simultaneously, he’s a walking, talking paradox. And that’s one huge wrench in the gears unless there is some other evidence, which as far as I know there isn’t.
Hehehe. I was thinking more of Scipio Africanus, who was brilliant, charismatic, and stark staring bonkers, and not for a short time either. Granted, he’s quite the special case, but arguably so is Peter. I do not think Peter a madman, but then I do not know for sure he was not one.
There is nothing solemn about this in the slightest.
Who died and made you the grand jury? And how is falling into a deception a crime or even a sin?
Let’s see:
Fact: people die, whether through old age, sickness, or trauma.
Fact: people generally do not recover from this ailment.
Fact: people actually getting better after dying is unprecedented.
What on earth makes you think that ‘hey guys, this Peter, he says his buddy got better after being crucified and buried for three days!’ wouldn’t get him laughed out of the room by a bunch of Galilean fishermen?
If Woody Allen had been the MC every time the Apostles got up to preach, Christianity would have died right there. Fortunately for it, he wasn’t, and they had the kind of charisma and dedication to pull it off – in some places. It didn’t play well everywhere.
Further:
Fact: people possess a human nature.
Fact: if there is a deity, it possesses a divine nature.
Therefore: possession of a human nature indicates humanity; possession of a divine nature indicates divinity.
Therefore: possession of a human nature, ie being human, precludes the possibility that one is in fact divine; and the same for possession of a divine nature.
Therefore: possession of two natures, or of a compound nature both divine and human, is a paradox.
Sorry, Aquinas, it just doesn’t work that way. Sure, you can take the hypostatic union on faith, but faith doesn’t get jurors to vote, or at least it shouldn’t. If Jesus is a man, there is no paradox; if he is God, there is similarly none – but if he is both simultaneously, he’s a walking, talking paradox. And that’s one huge wrench in the gears unless there is some other evidence, which as far as I know there isn’t.
If he believed it utterly true, if he bought into it, how could he be flippantly disobeying God by preaching it? He was a servant of God as best he knew how.
E
estesbob
Guest
Thats why i thought you were talking about me!
E
estesbob
Guest
Hannibal didnt think he was bonkers,
N
Nick
Guest
N
Nick
Guest
N
Nick
Guest
More on The Incarnation
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
LOL! I thought one of our goals was to have fun with this one. Playing CSI trying to dig up evidence to put Peter away, or exonerate him, is an entertaining way to go about it, but perhaps i’m wrong?
Jewish people in one of the Nazi death camps held a mock trial with God as the defendant and found him guilty of allowing them to unjustly suffer. They then held their normal Saturday worship and went about their daily duties.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
And Peter’s “act” played well in the very same city where Christ was crucified. He got 3,000 “standing ovations”, i mean, lifetime bona fide believers who were in the city at the time of Christ’s crucifixion and alleged resurrection. For 40 days after the day he rose, according to Paul, Jesus visited people throughout the city and immediate vicinity, and even visited a crowd of 500 people (1 Corinthians 15). Paul and John also write that Jesus visited Peter after his death and resurrection. These converts of Peter where making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and were there the entire time of these events.
Mir, i have to admit that what you say about a dead guy who suffered what Jesus went through never got up and walked. That Jesus would be the first and the stunt has never happened since is incredible. I agree it is in no way humanly possible, but as Jesus said, no good thing is impossible for God.
For the sake of just trying to see things through the eyes of a Christian for a moment, please consider this: Christians believe
- The universe did not just happen, for something has never been made out of nothing
- The universe must have had a cause
- The cause of the universe was God
- Life on our planet didn’t just happen, for no life has ever been created out of inanimate chemicals
- God is the one who created all life on our planet
- If God can create life, He can certainly recreate it, for the one who has the power to make it in the first place certainly has the power to raise a body from the dead
So, yes, that it is humanly impossible for Jesus to rise from the dead is true, but this is not what i am suggesting. You are creating a straw man and knocking him down and dancing around him with fists raised high like Rocky. The real one you must KO is God himself, for the only way what you say would be true is if God, as Christians know him, does not exist.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Mir:
I think what you are suggesting is that it is a logical contradiction to say that God took on a human nature and now has two natures instead of just one. Now a logical contradiction is to say that A is equal to not A. An example would be to say that odd is even or night is day. So lets consider your argument to see if you have uncovered a contradiction:
H. people possess a human nature
D. if there is a deity, it possesses a divine nature
C. It is a logical contradiction for one being to have both natures
Conclusion: Jesus could not be God and man at the same time.
There is no contradiction, Mir, because we are not saying that Jesus was (H) and not (H) at the same time. We are also not claiming that he was (D) and not (D) at the same time. What we are considering was that he was both (H) and (D) at the same time. No contradiction there. Your flaw is in premise (C). Since you have not proven it to be true, your logical argument fails to support the conclusion.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Mir:
I appreciate your method, and it is a valid way to go about the discussion. Rather than prove (2) you are trying to disprove (4). If (4) is false, then that leaves us with (2) as the only possibility. However, the only way (4) would be false is if the Christian God does not exist. You are, thus far, willing to admit the possibility that he does exist.
I appreciate your method, and it is a valid way to go about the discussion. Rather than prove (2) you are trying to disprove (4). If (4) is false, then that leaves us with (2) as the only possibility. However, the only way (4) would be false is if the Christian God does not exist. You are, thus far, willing to admit the possibility that he does exist.
*]He was insane
*]He was deceived
*]He knew he was not telling the truth
*]He knew he was telling the truth
I empathise with your being unable to comprehend how God could pull off taking on two natures, for this is a feat that has never been done before or since (although some thoughtful Christians pointing to certain events in the Old Testament might disagree). You are not alone! No Christian has ever been able to get this either.
However, please try to understand that not knowing how something can be true is NOT the same as proving it false. There are many things that i do not comprehend, but still apprehend. That is i don’t know why they are true, but i know that they are true. Scientists do the same. No physicist has been able to explain how light can possibly be both a particle and a wave, yet they know that light indeed is. No physicist has been able to explain how atoms hold together and why the universe does not disintegrate in one great nuclear explosion. They apprehend that atoms hold together, but they do not comprehend why they do.
These are scientific mysteries; they are true, but still mysteries. Jesus being both God and man is a mystery as well; it is true, but still a mystery. The historical evidence demonstrates the validity of this truth. It is not irrational to believe that a dead guy got up and walked.
M
Mirdath
Guest
Quite agreed, but what we are discussing is the very question of whether Jesus was, in fact, God. By all accounts, he was a man, and men do not get up after being dead for three days. The incredibility of that feat, rather than making a case for his divinity, makes a case for error in the record of his life and death since there is no independent evidence.
The existence of the divine is neither provable nor disprovable, and the existence of a God or Gods could conceivably have very little to do with the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.
It’s not quite like that. (H), I’m sure you’ll agree, is distinctly not (D); yet you say that Jesus possessed (H) and (D) simultaneously, and that boils down to (D) and (not-D). The hypostatic union violates the law of non-contradiction by saying that Jesus’ nature was both divine and human; the two are mutually exclusive.
That’s why it’s a mystery of the faith, no? It makes absolutely no sense for a thing to possess a compound nature made up of mutually exclusive parts, and you accept it on faith.
There’s a hard, certain truth based on reason and empiricism, and a ‘soft’ truth based on faith.
Strong and weak nuclear forces (two of the four fundamental forces) and electric charge, actually
Yes, it really is; you do not believe that based on reason but on faith. Reason tells us that when people die, it’s final; but faith tells you God can break that rule. There’s nothing wrong with being irrational, but don’t pretend it makes sense to someone who’s looking at it objectively.
D
davidv
Guest
It seems to me you have left out the Gospel “accounts” when you make this statement. The Gospels proclaim the contrary. On what basis can you exclude these “accounts” when claiming “all”?
M
Mirdath
Guest
I think I specified that there are no independent histories verifying the resurrection, and the gospels do say Jesus was a man, as do other histories in which he is mentioned, however briefly.
To claim your religion is correct because its own holy book says it is is the height of bad form.
D
dcdurel
Guest
But Jesus lived and worked among the Jews and the Romans. Both persecuted the Christians and some of them both put Jesus to death. Yet none of them denied truth of the gospel narratives of the life of Jesus. None of the Jews denied that the miracles described in the written gospels were false. Those Jews and those Romans who hated the Christians would have loved to have said “these Christians are liars, because in their writings they claimed Jesus publically performed miracles, yet no one ever saw these miracles.”
But, the Jews could not use these arguments, because these miracles were public and everyone saw them. All the Jews could say was that Jesus worked miracles by the power of the devil. Thus, even the Jews and the Romans could not discredit the four Gospel narratives.
- Status