Philosophy Now Forum

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 9:25 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 2:42 pm
Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”

Hey, me too!

Show us the Christian God. Demonstrate to us that He and not any of the many, many other alleged Gods does in fact exist.

That'll be enough for me.

Then you must also be content to receive the answer that Jesus gave to Phillip.

I'm sorry, but r u gentlemen discussing conversations that may or may not have happened that may or may not mean what we think they mean, between people who may or may not have existed thousands of years ago?

WWKPD. What would karl popper do.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 6:36 pm No, you haven't said a darn thing.

Actually it is you who did a great deal even if it took long while. I told you that you needed to first get the basic definition and you did. You actually got it. And you even have a sense of the etymology of the word in Greek. A powerful intellect roaring down the forum’s main drag.

I’m quite proud of you!

Now I can proceed to develop my though in relation to the general concept.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 6:36 pmAnd meanwhile, you haven't answered my other question.

Sure I did. More proper to say you can’t take it in.

The notion of the Hebrews having been 'chosen' by god, when no god actually did chose them and their own priest-class made ALL THESE ASSERTIONS and then wielded them as idea-imperialism against other peoples, denigrating their god-concepts, stating that they are false, and also working to destroy them .... that is what I have been talking about.

That, you sublime idiot, is what Hebrew Idea Imperialism refers to. And here it is quintessentially expressed:

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me."

Any questions?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 11:11 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 6:36 pm No, you haven't said a darn thing.

Actually...

Actually, I realize now I've been trying to drill a hole in water.

I withdraw my questions, because you're never going to answer anyway.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 11:35 pm Actually, I realize now I've been trying to drill a hole in water.

I withdraw my questions, because you're never going to answer anyway.

You pitiable loon. You do not ‘ask questions’. You are the subject of my inquiries. First, I established an initial definition that I will now — very soon! — expand on.

Because I have my own objectives here I intend to develop my ideas. They soar over your head.

I do not need your assent. And the games you play often can be bent to serve productive purposes.

I told you previously: sit down, shut that trap of yours, and listen.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 2:42 pm

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 2:23 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 1:51 pm
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me."

Can you speak to your understanding of what "through me" entails? Also what is meant by Jesus IS "the way", Jesus IS "the truth", Jesus IS "the life"?

Yes. Here is the rest of the context, as Jesus Himself exposits it:

"If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.”

Philip *said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”

Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you for so long a time, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? The one who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own, but the Father, as He remains in Me, does His works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves. Truly, truly I say to you, the one who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I am going to the Father. And whatever you ask in My name, this I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it." (John 14:7-14)

Here, Jesus clearly makes several claims. One is that He is identified with "the Father." By "through me," it is also apparent, that he is speaking of "the one who believes in Me." So the "way" to "the Father" is by "believing" in the Son, Jesus Christ, who is the exclusive "way" to God.

As for "the truth," that one seems obvious, does it not? He's speaking about the total truth, but particularly about the truth about "the Father" and "the way" to Him. That also helps us to understand "the life," though we can use the greater context to give that more evidence, too: "the life" refers to "the Father's house," a place Christ Himself will "prepare for you," as He says in the prior context, which means eternal life.

So, now, you have a fuller context. And you know what Christians understand by it, and why they understand it that way. Is there really an alternate reading available from the context of that verse? If there is, I'm interested to know what it would be. And I'd sincerely like to hear it explained, because it's not at all obvious to me what other way one would go with that reading.

I wasn't asking for you to give further context. None of the above addressed the questions in other than a vague manner.

Let's see if the following will help move things along.

John 14:6 means Jesus is our only access to God and salvation. There is no other way to be saved. Our good works cannot save us neither can our positions in the church or among men can save us. This scripture is a non-negotiable requirement to be saved.
Jesus is not one of the ways, but the ONLY way to the cross where His blood was shed so that we can be saved. For without the shedding of His blood, there would be no remission of sin. (Hebrews 9:22)

From <https://www.christianwalls.com/blogs/bi ... contents-6>

The bottom line is that coming to the Father "through [Jesus]" entails having faith that the above (or some variation thereof) is true. More than a few Christians I've come across have shared a similar belief. It is also what they believe "believing in" Jesus entails. Do you think that they are correct? Why or why not?

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 2:57 pm

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 1:21 pm
What a ridiculous argument. It's as if you have no understanding of the documentation of history whatsoever.
There are any number of historical figures for whom either there are no or few extant copies of what they wrote themselves. Only copies of what others said they wrote - often having been written years later. They are still talked about and considered to be their thoughts and words. This is especially true of figures from ancient history. Where's the sense in you mindlessly parroting a ridiculous argument that holds no water?

What you say is true regarding historical figures. But had you considered further you would have noticed a huge distinction re historical figures. We are interested in their culture, their philosophic thoughts and perspectives of reality. It's part of our heritage with no compulsion to agree with any of it but nevertheless culturally valuable subject to analysis and scholarship.

Not so when considering the god equation whose conditions are absolute and for all time especially as regards eternal life. The gospels which attempt to engender belief in Jesus as the one true and only guide to salvation belongs to a very different category in relation to 'other' historical figures. One does not question what is presumed to be divinely spoken...interpreted perhaps but never negated.

It's as if you've lost context of our discussion or are making another ridiculous argument.

You made the following assertion:

There is no "his gospel" since the earliest gospel was written by Mark approximately around the time of the Siege of Jerusalem 40 years later. Jesus didn't write any gospel so there can be no 'his gospel'. None of the gospels, containing huge amounts of contradiction both inter and intra, can know what Jesus actually spoke. The motives of each of the gospel writers - besides often being at odds with each other - cannot unconditionally be presumed to be that of Jesus at such a late date. The gospels are propaganda sheets based first and foremost on the motives of its writer to propagate the faith.

My previous post was a refutation of the above. As such, for all intents and purposes, there is a "His gospel". With that in mind can you address the content of the post to which you originally responded?:

Christians often take verses out of context (often ambiguous) and create a narrative about them that misleads others into believing they mean something they do not. So it goes with John 14:6. It isn't that Jesus creat[ed] a monopoly" there; rather Christians mislead others into believing that Jesus creat[ed] a monopoly" there. You need to put John 14:6 in context with the rest of the words attributed to Jesus while He preached His gospel to understand what it means. Better still, put John 14:6 in context the entirety of the words attributed to Jesus while He preached His gospel. Jesus preached His gospel from the beginning of His ministry through His death.

Alexis Jacobi wrote:

One, Benny Hinn who is enacting mystical transport carried out in a mass Christian reunion. All the elements of 'original Christianity' are there.

except.....

Over the past three decades, Benny Hinn has worked as a pastor, evangelist, and faith healer. He has impacted thousands upon thousands of listeners with his words and actions.

Unfortunately, many of Hinn's sermons and activities do not align with Scripture.

Teachings
Hinn states that the Bible is the source of much of his inspiration, but he also often teaches through what he calls "revelation," or words he believes are straight from the Holy Spirit, outside of Scripture.

reasonvemotion wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 1:46 am Over the past three decades, Benny Hinn has worked as a pastor, evangelist, and faith healer. He has impacted thousands upon thousands of listeners with his words and actions.

Unfortunately, many of Hinn's sermons and activities do not align with Scripture.

Teachings

Hinn states that the Bible is the source of much of his inspiration, but he also often teaches through what he calls "revelation," or words he believes are straight from the Holy Spirit, outside of Scripture.

That’s the part that interests me: to have influenced thousands, even millions.

For the rest: more or less in accord with standard Christian prayer meeting practices. He illustrates therefore what Christianity is by what is done.

I get that he is also making millions and living high. I also get that his physical faith healings have been proven false.

But curiously who can really say that his spiritual healings (brought out in the process of his theatrical mass-meetings) are not ‘real’? The testimonials under the video attests to transformations.

What goes on there?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 1:56 am

reasonvemotion wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 1:46 am Over the past three decades, Benny Hinn has worked as a pastor, evangelist, and faith healer. He has impacted thousands upon thousands of listeners with his words and actions.

Unfortunately, many of Hinn's sermons and activities do not align with Scripture.

Teachings

Hinn states that the Bible is the source of much of his inspiration, but he also often teaches through what he calls "revelation," or words he believes are straight from the Holy Spirit, outside of Scripture.

That’s the part that interests me: to have influenced thousands, even millions.

For the rest: more or less in accord with standard Christian prayer meeting practices. He illustrates therefore what Christianity is by what is done.

I get that he is also making millions and living high. I also get that his physical faith healings have been proven false.

But curiously who can really say that his spiritual healings (brought out in the process of his theatrical mass-meetings) are not ‘real’? The testimonials under the video attests to transformations.

What goes on there?

Oh, that's quite simple! Living humans whose brains have not yet been resurrected from the dead...a countless number. It's not so unusual to wonder if planet earth is, in fact, the one and only lunatic asylum in the galaxy.

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 1:16 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 2:57 pm

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 1:21 pm
What a ridiculous argument. It's as if you have no understanding of the documentation of history whatsoever.
There are any number of historical figures for whom either there are no or few extant copies of what they wrote themselves. Only copies of what others said they wrote - often having been written years later. They are still talked about and considered to be their thoughts and words. This is especially true of figures from ancient history. Where's the sense in you mindlessly parroting a ridiculous argument that holds no water?

What you say is true regarding historical figures. But had you considered further you would have noticed a huge distinction re historical figures. We are interested in their culture, their philosophic thoughts and perspectives of reality. It's part of our heritage with no compulsion to agree with any of it but nevertheless culturally valuable subject to analysis and scholarship.

Not so when considering the god equation whose conditions are absolute and for all time especially as regards eternal life. The gospels which attempt to engender belief in Jesus as the one true and only guide to salvation belongs to a very different category in relation to 'other' historical figures. One does not question what is presumed to be divinely spoken...interpreted perhaps but never negated.

It's as if you've lost context of our discussion or are making another ridiculous argument.

You made the following assertion:

There is no "his gospel" since the earliest gospel was written by Mark approximately around the time of the Siege of Jerusalem 40 years later. Jesus didn't write any gospel so there can be no 'his gospel'. None of the gospels, containing huge amounts of contradiction both inter and intra, can know what Jesus actually spoke. The motives of each of the gospel writers - besides often being at odds with each other - cannot unconditionally be presumed to be that of Jesus at such a late date. The gospels are propaganda sheets based first and foremost on the motives of its writer to propagate the faith.

My previous post was a refutation of the above. As such, for all intents and purposes, there is a "His gospel". With that in mind can you address the content of the post to which you originally responded?:

Christians often take verses out of context (often ambiguous) and create a narrative about them that misleads others into believing they mean something they do not. So it goes with John 14:6. It isn't that Jesus creat[ed] a monopoly" there; rather Christians mislead others into believing that Jesus creat[ed] a monopoly" there. You need to put John 14:6 in context with the rest of the words attributed to Jesus while He preached His gospel to understand what it means. Better still, put John 14:6 in context the entirety of the words attributed to Jesus while He preached His gospel. Jesus preached His gospel from the beginning of His ministry through His death.

You cannot possibly know what Jesus preached except whatever it was it didn't refer to Gentiles. There is NO gospel according to Jesus. There are only the four allowed in the authorized NT which are mostly a smorgasbord of contradictions. Period, end of conversation!

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 1:04 am I wasn't asking for you to give further context. None of the above addressed the questions in other than a vague manner.

I'm sorry.

I understood that you were saying that you thought there were different interpretations, depending on the context. I was merely trying to respond to that concern in the most relevant way. But if I misunderstood your implication, I'm happy to revise.

Let's see if the following will help move things along.

John 14:6 means Jesus is our only access to God and salvation. There is no other way to be saved. Our good works cannot save us neither can our positions in the church or among men can save us. This scripture is a non-negotiable requirement to be saved.
Jesus is not one of the ways, but the ONLY way to the cross where His blood was shed so that we can be saved. For without the shedding of His blood, there would be no remission of sin. (Hebrews 9:22)

From <https://www.christianwalls.com/blogs/bi ... contents-6>

The bottom line is that coming to the Father "through [Jesus]" entails having faith that the above (or some variation thereof) is true. More than a few Christians I've come across have shared a similar belief. It is also what they believe "believing in" Jesus entails. Do you think that they are correct? Why or why not?

I'm going to try to be very precise, so as to be sure to cover what you might really be asking here. If I miss, just say so, and I'll try again.

The first and second sentences are both entirely warranted by John 14:6, and the third is certainly implied, if not made explicit. The fourth ("This scripture...etc".) is also obviously true, and core to Christianity.

Now, I do fully agree with the third sentence," Our good works cannot save us...etc." However, I admit that I do not see that doctrine made fully explicit in this particular passage. It's implied, but not developed in that context. However, if one turned to Ephesians 2:8-9 or Titus 3:5, you'd find that doctrine very explicitly taught and explained. So it is also correct, and is a basic of Christianity.

The remaining sentences are a summary of doctrine, one also warranted by the passage in John, but as the writers have indicated, one would have to fill them out from other Scriptures like Hebrews 9:22 to be able to have the fulness of that doctrine in hand. There is, in John 14:6 or in the context, no mention of "the blood" for example, or of the doctrine of "remission." Nevertheless, they are also true and are parts of Christian core doctrine.

In short, yes, I believe it all...even the parts you can't find explicitly spelled out, but only implicit, in John 14:6 itself.

But then you ask if that is what "believing in Jesus" entails. And that's more problematic, because "believing in Jesus" is not the same as believing in a set of propositions or even a formal statement of particular doctrines. It's not even the same as saying, "I believe that what christianwalls.com has written is true." It's not trusting in facts; it's trusting in a Person. And that's a different thing.

Perhaps I can fill that out for you a bit. To "believe in Jesus" is more akin to what somebody is asking you to do when, say, you give them a task to do, and they sense you're nervous, and they say, "Have a little faith in me."

What they mean is, "Trust me personally. Consider who I am, and what you know about me, and rely on me to be what you need me to be, and to do what you need me to do, in this situation."

To "believe in Jesus" is the same: it's to consider who He is, and decide that you can rely on him to be what you need Him to be to you, and to do what needs to be done in your life. In particular, it means, as John 14:6 makes so clear, in the context, that you trust Him to be the one to get you to God. And it means that one agrees to follow Christ, to depend on the truth of His words and the integrity of His person, and to shape your own life accordingly.

And toward that end, you're going to have faith in Him to make the necessary changes in you, and in the face of judgment, to advocate for you so that you can be brought into a relationship with God...regardless of your own past sins and failures. And one need to have this faith in Him, even though the task of bringing fallen mortals into peaceful fellowship with a holy God seems far too much for anyone but Jesus Christ to do.

Now, that's as full an answer as I can fashion at the moment, given my current understanding of your questions, as written. Have I covered what you wanted me to cover? And do you have anything else you wish to ask or add? I'm open to that.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 9:53 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 9:25 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 2:42 pm
Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”

Hey, me too!

Show us the Christian God. Demonstrate to us that He and not any of the many, many other alleged Gods does in fact exist.

That'll be enough for me.

Then you must also be content to receive the answer that Jesus gave to Phillip.

Yes, of course, by allowing you to completely ignore this part:

"But don't expect me to believe that He does exist just because you quote from the Christian Bible that He does. And this being the case you assure us because it is the Word of the Christian God. And it must be the Word of the Christian God because it says so right there in the Christian Bible.

I challenge others here to resist further discussions with him until he can in fact demonstrate that his own God is, in fact, the God.

Those videos, for example...



Note to others:

For God's sake, challenge him!!!

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 2:58 am "But don't expect me to believe that He does exist just because you quote from the Christian Bible that He does.

I never said any such thing. You inferred that, apparently from your own suppositions.

Here's how it actually is: I tell you what the Bible says, so you will know I'm speaking authentically about the topic at the top of this thread, "Christianity," and not making things up -- and I give the reference, so you can look it up and check me on that.

You're welcome.