homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Purgatory   » God the Son = Son of God? (Page 4)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: God the Son = Son of God?
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
You behave as if everything Jesus said was to be taken only as far as a reasonable person could draw a conclusion. Of course it is reasonable to consider the Father and Jesus as different persons based on his pattern of speech, it is reasonable because that is normal. But nothing is normal about Jesus and his Father's relationship. So what is common and normal cannot prove anything for you. "Reasonable" does not equate to proof of your position. I'm trying to tell you the storyline shows Jesus leading people toward an UNreasonable conclusion.

I will readily agree that Jesus is constantly leading his disciples and his listeners—and us—to unexpected conclusions, but what unreasonable conclusion does the storyline show Jesus leading anyone to?

I'm sorry Aijalon, but if I understand what you're arguing, I just can't make it square with Scripture, much less with Jesus as the Gospels portray him. Call it "play acting" or whatever, I can't see how what you seem to be suggesting is anything other than dishonesty on Jesus's part, with the apparent expectation that the disciples will see through the dishonesty in a nudge, nudge, wink, wink sort of way. And if that's the case, then it seems to me that we cannot really trust what Jesus, who calls himself "the Truth," says.

It's not Jesus's play acting that leads to unexpected conclusions. It's Jesus's very forthright statements about who he is and what the kingdom of God is that does that.

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
You don't really seem serious about anything but dissecting hairs.

I'm not dissecting hairs for the sake of dissecting hairs. What I am trying to say is that it seems to me your argument is so covered in hairs that it is impossible to address the argument.
If you want us to address the argument it's your responsibility to get the hairs out of the way. Now, if English isn't your first language then that's different and we can try to work things out. But at the moment it looks as if you're being careless with your words and it's a reasonable supposition that you're equally careless with your thoughts.

quote:
The point of the analogy is to -in general- refute your false statement.
Which analogy? Which statement?

quote:
You behave as if everything Jesus said was to be taken only as far as a reasonable person could draw a conclusion. Of course it is reasonable to consider the Father and Jesus as different persons based on his pattern of speech, it is reasonable because that is normal. But nothing is normal about Jesus and his Father's relationship. So what is common and normal cannot prove anything for you.
If Bruce Wayne were to tell Commissioner Gordon that 'Batman and I are one' you believe it would be reasonable of Commissioner Gordon to conclude that Bruce Wayne is Batman. But now you say that what is reasonable and normal does not apply to Jesus. So when Jesus says 'I and the Father are one' you are saying that cannot prove anything for us.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Aijalon.

Trinitarianism is dialectically unavoidable. No other conclusion is possible using reason predicated on the text. A sufficiently logically trained, literarily educated atheist or Muslim could conclude nothing else. They would dismiss the text of course. So why don't you? Your arguments, your method of discourse, is too weak, too uneducated, not up to the task. You don't use any unitarian resources. Why not? They will be much better than yours. And still fail of course. But they fail better than you.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Jesus praying is at all times instructive for those hearing, even when it isn't recorded that he said "this is for your instruction". This is pretty clear in that these things were recorded and written for our benefit, and we learn from it. In fact, I would argue that in the case of play acting, it is actually the best kind of instruction (best acting) when you cannot tell that person is acting. There is something fake about a mere "demonstration", versus an actual live exercise. Like the difference between target practice and actually hunting.

This paragraph undoes itself. First you say Jesus was only praying for our instruction. Then you say that if Jesus were praying for our instruction he would have done it in such a way that we didn't know he was praying for our instruction. That's a contradiction.
The equivalent of an actual live exercise would be Jesus overseeing the disciples praying. Not the disciples watching Jesus praying.
One of the things that we are instructed in by Jesus' prayers is that Jesus isn't the Father.

quote:
The Gospels are narrative..... the hearer is put in the narrative for our instruction. What is understood by the hearers of the story are written down for our instruction. The response of those hearing him, give us revelation.
You could have tried to say that more clearly the first time.
I agree with all that. (*) However, as the disciples' response to the passage of John 14 that we have been discussing is not recorded or written down it doesn't do anything to establish your argument. Nowhere do any of the disciples react by saying Jesus and the Father are one and the same.

(*) Would it kill you to sort out your grammar? Are you under some religious vow that your verbs must not agree in number with their subjects?

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777

 - Posted      Profile for Aijalon   Email Aijalon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I quoted your false statement to you.

I never claimed to be here to win at grammar, or spelling, or typing. All three good skills though, true!. I am flattered that you did take the time to diagram the sentences (or the run-ons).

Are you able to read/have a conversation without being irked by imperfect grammar?

BBL and have a good weekend!

[ 22. June 2017, 21:36: Message edited by: Aijalon ]

--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.

Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Learn.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I quoted your false statement to you.

I never claimed to be here to win at grammar, or spelling, or typing. All three good skills though, true!. I am flattered that you did take the time to diagram the sentences (or the run-ons).

Are you able to read/have a conversation without being irked by imperfect grammar?

BBL and have a good weekend!

Dafyd made no false statement. You did. Your argumentation is just not up to this.

[ 23. June 2017, 09:39: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I quoted your false statement to you.

If you mean:
quote:
It's not confusion on the part of the listener if it's a reasonable reaction to what they hear.
that's a true statement.

I'm afraid your analogy to algebra teaching would be an attempt to blame the pupils for rubbish teaching.

quote:
I am flattered that you did take the time to diagram the sentences (or the run-ons).

Are you able to read/have a conversation without being irked by imperfect grammar?

I can't read nonsense or word salad, no.

"Diagram" the sentences? I wouldn't know how.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Aijalon

I used to come to refine my position. It broke. Yours is so broken already, why do you come?

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777

 - Posted      Profile for Aijalon   Email Aijalon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I quoted your false statement to you.

If you mean:
quote:
It's not confusion on the part of the listener if it's a reasonable reaction to what they hear.
that's a true statement.

I'm afraid your analogy to algebra teaching would be an attempt to blame the pupils for rubbish teaching.

quote:
I am flattered that you did take the time to diagram the sentences (or the run-ons).

Are you able to read/have a conversation without being irked by imperfect grammar?

I can't read nonsense or word salad, no.

"Diagram" the sentences? I wouldn't know how.

Not to let you down, I have been very sick last 4-5 days.

Rubbish teaching: That's just veering the analogy of the rails entirely, keep it to the actual situation. We know the teacher was not rubbish. We know the lesson is not easy. Don't conflate the term confusion with stupidity. That is overly limiting the connotation of the word.

Confused can be simply "not understanding".

THIS >> "Tell me plainly, not in figures of speech...." == disciples confused.

There is no need for confusion to be a levy of insult on the student or the teacher as you seem to suggest.

Ultimately, I'm simply saying it is possible to come to a reasonable conclusion, and yet still have the wrong conclusion (confused). That's pretty simple.

All the listeners in the story, naturally and reasonably would have thought of God as a separate person from Jesus at the outset, at first meeting. Jesus speaks naturally -as if- the Father was not himself, but subtly nudges them/us to think of Him as the same. Why add the obscurity if not to lead them to a different conclusion?

The Trinity wasn't a conclusion presented in the story. So in the end, to the simple man of Judea, I'd say having the same being as something, makes you the same as the something. Can't have an identical being and essence as a person without BEING that person. That's where the Trinity stopped making sense to me.

Jesus says, in summary, "I am God's being" No need to make further conclusions.

If we accept Jesus to be the being and essence of God at face value, we can't turn and override that idea because of Jesus' pattern of speech seems to be obscure. The obscurity is intricately tied to his personal face to face dialogue. This is where the context of the storyline leads us to put ourselves in the shoes of Phillip.

If you ask anyone if one person is one being, they will say yes. Person and being are equivalent. Only in a convoluted philosophical sense can that be made out as false. That sense has caused people I know to try to communicate to God as three people in three different ways (three relationships). For example, praying to the Holy Spirit, rather than the Father. This to them somehow makes their prayers more effective. They somehow believe that if they can have three relationships to God, they are more Godly, since after all God has three relationships with himself.

--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.

Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:

Confused can be simply "not understanding".

If one person offers a complaint, it might be them. If nearly everyone does, it is almost certainly you.

[ 29. June 2017, 16:53: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Confused can be simply "not understanding".

No, it can't. 'Confused' means mixed together or muddled (from 'con', 'together', and 'found', 'to pour'). If you use 'confuse' to mean merely 'not understanding' you're going to confuse anyone trying to understand you. (*)

quote:
THIS >> "Tell me plainly, not in figures of speech...." == disciples confused.
I suspect this is a bald assertion without supporting argument but as you haven't troubled to put in into English sentences I cannot be sure.

quote:
Ultimately, I'm simply saying it is possible to come to a reasonable conclusion, and yet still have the wrong conclusion (confused). That's pretty simple.
It is of course possible for a reasonable conclusion to be wrong (though not confused). That is not the question.
If Clark Kent pretends to be talking on the phone to Superman and Jimmy Olson concludes that he's talking to Superman, the problem isn't that Jimmy Olson doesn't understand (or is confused). It's that Jimmy Olson understands perfectly well what is meant. It's just that Clark Kent is deliberately doing something where what is meant is false; he is deliberately giving a false impression.
You've been waffling away from the point and around the point and quibbling about playacting and pretending. But Jesus is on your account doing something that establishes a false belief.

quote:
Jesus speaks naturally -as if- the Father was not himself, but subtly nudges them/us to think of Him as the same. Why add the obscurity if not to lead them to a different conclusion?
By speaking as if Jesus is not the Father Jesus strongly and directly nudges the hearers into thinking their natural assumption is confirmed.
Why the obscurity if matters are as simple as you suggest? The obscurity suggests that things are not as they appear to 'the simple man of Judea'.

quote:
Jesus says, in summary, "I am God's being"
No he doesn't.

quote:
If we accept Jesus to be the being and essence of God at face value, we can't turn and override that idea because of Jesus' pattern of speech seems to be obscure.
The problem doesn't come where Jesus' pattern of speech is obscure. The problem for your position is the bits where Jesus' pattern of speech is perfectly clear.

quote:
The obscurity is intricately tied to his personal face to face dialogue. This is where the context of the storyline leads us to put ourselves in the shoes of Phillip.
Exactly. Try doing it and see. Put ourselves in Philip's shoes. Would Philip conclude that Jesus is saying he's the same person as the Father? Don't do any of the sterile logic chopping of two thousand years later. Put yourself in Philip's shoes after three years of following Jesus. Would Philip conclude from what Jesus says that Jesus is the same person as the Father? No, he wouldn't. If we imagine Jesus' language, Jesus' body language, we see quite clearly that's not what Jesus meant.
That clears it up. Go on try it.

(Short version: your instruction to 'put yourselves in Philip's shoes' only seems to you convincing because you're already convinced for other reasons.)

quote:
If you ask anyone if one person is one being, they will say yes. Person and being are equivalent. Only in a convoluted philosophical sense can that be made out as false.
Would that convoluted philosophical sense be obscure? Would Jesus' words be obscure because they're convoluted? 'I am in the Father and the Father is in me' is convoluted if anything is.

(*) Yes, that's a different yet related sense of 'confuse'.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well that nailed that Jell-O to the wall!

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777

 - Posted      Profile for Aijalon   Email Aijalon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You just claimed that I cannot use the word confused in a certain context, and then went on to use the word confused in that exact context. That's absurd.

I'm done.

--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.

Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
You just claimed that I cannot use the word confused in a certain context, and then went on to use the word confused in that exact context. That's absurd.

I never said anything about not being able to use the word in any 'context'. If you're saying I used the word to mean 'not understanding' I did not.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
You just claimed that I cannot use the word confused in a certain context, and then went on to use the word confused in that exact context. That's absurd.

I never said anything about not being able to use the word in any 'context'. If you're saying I used the word to mean 'not understanding' I did not.
Not usually one to agree with aijalon, but to be fair,
dictionary.com shows something similar to aijalon's meaning for the first four definitions. You have to go all the way to definition #5 to get anything that looks much like Dafyd's.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dafyd:
[qb] Not usually one to agree with aijalon, but to be fair, shows something similar to aijalon's meaning for the first four definitions. You have to go all the way to definition #5 to get anything that looks much like Dafyd's.

I don't think any of those senses mean 'not understanding' which is what Aijalon says he means by it. My definition was referring back to the original metaphor: all the senses involve a mental metaphorical mixing together.
There's also a distinction I think between 'being confused by' something else where the confusion comes from something else doing the confusing and just 'being confused' where the confusion comes from the person who is confused. My point is that if you can't attribute confusion to the person who is confused in the second sense where the person's state of mind is a reasonable reaction to the evidence.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

There's also a distinction I think between 'being confused by' something else where the confusion comes from something else doing the confusing and just 'being confused' where the confusion comes from the person who is confused. My point is that if you can't attribute confusion to the person who is confused in the second sense where the person's state of mind is a reasonable reaction to the evidence.

I find this confusing.

(and pedantic)

[ 30. June 2017, 22:59: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
but to be fair,
dictionary.com shows something similar to aijalon's meaning for the first four definitions. You have to go all the way to definition #5 to get anything that looks much like Dafyd's.

If we are being fair, aijalon's arguments could be used as an illustration of all of those definitions.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
but to be fair,
dictionary.com shows something similar to aijalon's meaning for the first four definitions. You have to go all the way to definition #5 to get anything that looks much like Dafyd's.

If we are being fair, aijalon's arguments could be used as an illustration of all of those definitions.
True that!

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools