There is no "God of the Bible"

subllibrm said:
Emmanuel?
Click to expand...
I was approaching it from the hermeneutical historical context of what the/some Jews (prior to Christ's coming and the NT text being written as confirmation of His divinity) thought (and taught) in the OT, contrary to what Smellin's unitarian buddy is claiming in the video.
 
Smellin Coffee said:
I'm not Unitarian but their hermeneutic would disagree with your hermeneutic.


Trinitarians will look at Jesus’ phrase “egō eimi” and conclude that he is claiming the same name that God gives for himself in Exodus 3:14. However, this is faulty logic for multiple reasons. First, Jesus does not quote the full title. Jesus does not say, “Before Abraham was, I am who I am.” He only says part of the phrase. Secondly, he says the wrong part of the phrase if this was his goal. If you notice above, God shortens his divine name in the second half of Exodus 3:14 and says to tell them: “The one who is (ο ων) has sent me to you.’” The translators of the Septuagint do not use “egō eimi” here, instead they use ο ων (“ho on”). Thus, if John being quite familiar with the Septuagint (he quotes it in John 2:17), had meant to communicate that Jesus was claiming to be YHWH, at the very least would have used “ο ων,” instead, he uses “egō eimi.” In summary, here in John 8:58, Jesus does not use the complete divine title in Exodus 3:14a, nor the partial divine title in Exodus 3:14b, but instead uses “egō eimi” which was a common expression in Greek to identify oneself as the person being talked about, i.e. “I am he” or “I am the one” (Matt. 14:27; Mark 13:6; etc.).

4. The argument is made that because Jesus was “before” Abraham, Jesus must have been God. There is no question that Jesus figuratively “existed” in Abraham’s time. However, he did not actually physically exist as a person; rather he “existed” in the mind of God as God’s plan for the redemption of man. A careful reading of the context of the verse shows that Jesus was speaking of “existing” in God’s foreknowledge. Verse 56 is accurately translated in the King James Version, which says: “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.” This verse says that Abraham “saw” the Day of Christ, which is normally considered by theologians to be the day when Christ conquers the earth and sets up his kingdom. That would fit with what the book of Hebrews says about Abraham: “For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God” (Heb. 11:10). Abraham looked for a city that is still future, yet the Bible says Abraham “saw” it. In what sense could Abraham have seen something that was future? Abraham “saw” the Day of Christ because God told him it was coming, and Abraham “saw” it by faith. Although Abraham saw the Day of Christ by faith, that day existed in the mind of God long before Abraham. Thus, in the context of God’s plan existing from the beginning, Christ certainly was “before” Abraham. Christ was the plan of God for man’s redemption long before Abraham lived.
Source:

John 8:58b - BiblicalUnitarian.com

The following is a clear explanation of the verse in the Bible that Trinitarians have sometimes used in attempts to “prove” the Trinity...
www.biblicalunitarian.com www.biblicalunitarian.com
Click to expand...
Do you believe in modern sciences such as quantum physics, physics and other sciences?
 
ALAYMAN said:
Did Jews believe that Messiah was going to be God?
Click to expand...
FYI, I am NOT arguing for Unitarianism. I don't believe it.

The point I was making is that hermeneutic is relative and the Evangelical hermeneutic differs from that of Unitarians who are also biblically educated.

At the core, the argument really isn't about whether or not Jesus was God but rather about whether or not Evangelical/Protestant hermeneutic is the ONLY correct one since sources of confirmation bias (on both sides) are being used. The folks with the "correct" hermeneutic become the sole possessors of truth and I would suggest there is no way to confirm a single hermeneutic is the only correct one.

It's fine for you to believe what you wish just as it's fine for Unitarians as well. It's fine to gather with groups of like-mindedness'. What's not fine is to claim to be arbiter of absolute truth from God so that "truth" must be dispensed only by those who espouse those ideas with intention to be imposed on those who disagree with that particular interpretation of it.

Unitarians don't hold the truth. Evangelicals/Fundamentalists don't hold the truth. And neither do I.
 
Smellin Coffee said:
Your illustration is duly noted but there is one problem: I am a being whereas God is not. God is not a being (a living thing that exists) because beings have limitations. In order for God not to be limited, it (God) must be BEING itself. Hence, the worship of a projection of any being is idolatry.
Click to expand...
Question beg much?

If God doesn't exist, there is no such thing as idolatry. But I digress.

Your premises don't get to enjoy any defacto truth value. Tell us why you think there is no God.
 
Ekklesian said:
Question beg much?

If God doesn't exist, there is no such thing as idolatry. But I digress.

Your premises don't get to enjoy any defacto truth value. Tell us why you think there is no God.
Click to expand...
My premise is solely my current opinion and subject to change as I grow and gather more information. My premise is subject to contradiction as we are all contradictory by nature. My premise is not infallible. My premise is by no means exhaustive. My premise is not authoritative over anyone.

I won't tell you why I "think there is no God" because that statement isn't true.
 
Smellin Coffee said:
My premise is solely my current opinion and subject to change as I grow and gather more information. My premise is subject to contradiction as we are all contradictory by nature. My premise is not infallible. My premise is by no means exhaustive. My premise is not authoritative over anyone.

I won't tell you why I "think there is no God" because that statement isn't true.
Click to expand...

To piggyback on why there is a God, Aquinas gives 5 reasons, details of which can be read in his Summa Theologiae:
1. The argument of the "first mover" (Cosmological)
2. The argument from universal causation (Cosmological)
3. The argument from contingency (Ontological)
4. The argument from degree (Cosmological)
5. The argument from final cause or ends (Teleological)

St. Anselm argued (very loosely stated here) that God is the greatest possible thing beyond human conception.
So which is greater: A God who does exist or a God who does not exist? Answer is a God who does exist, therefore God has to exist.

Descartes really emphasized the Ontological argument derived from St. Anselm. In general, it gives 3 points:
1. "God" by definition has to be perfect
2. Existence is necessitated for something to be perfect
3. Therefore, God must exist.

Paley's Watchmaker argument has some holes in it. Design theory itself is critiqued in David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (Link below).

Despite Hume's critique, I do believe God exists and my beliefs about God as Ground have been researched and I'm just not making stuff up or believing anything some "junk theologian" or "frothing atheist" said because it makes me feel good or to present a form of piety.

 
Last edited:
zechariah said:
Do you believe in modern sciences such as quantum physics, physics and other sciences?
Click to expand...
I believe scientists know much more about those disciplines than I do so I have to trust their judgement at times.
 
Smellin Coffee said:
My premise is solely my current opinion and subject to change as I grow and gather more information. My premise is subject to contradiction as we are all contradictory by nature. My premise is not infallible. My premise is by no means exhaustive. My premise is not authoritative over anyone.

I won't tell you why I "think there is no God" because that statement isn't true.
Click to expand...
🤣

Twas brillig, and the slythy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe.
 
Smellin Coffee said:
To piggyback on why there is a God, Aquinas gives 5 reasons, details of which can be read in his Summa Theologiae:
1. The argument of the "first mover" (Cosmological)
2. The argument from universal causation (Cosmological)
3. The argument from contingency (Ontological)
4. The argument from degree (Cosmological)
5. The argument from final cause or ends (Teleological)

St. Anselm argued (very loosely stated here) that God is the greatest possible thing beyond human conception.
So which is greater: A God who does exist or a God who does not exist? Answer is a God who does exist, therefore God has to exist.

Descartes really emphasized the Ontological argument derived from St. Anselm. In general, it gives 3 points:
1. "God" by definition has to be perfect
2. Existence is necessitated for something to be perfect
3. Therefore, God must exist.

Paley's Watchmaker argument has some holes in it. Design theory itself is critiqued in David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (Link below).

Despite Hume's critique, I do believe God exists and my beliefs about God as Ground have been researched and I'm just not making stuff up or believing anything some "junk theologian" or "frothing atheist" said because it makes me feel good or to present a form of piety.

Click to expand...
I think you have done justice to the ontological argument for the existence of God in very few words. I say this because I have been looking into St. Anselm (and others) because of a study you have inspired. I am hoping to publish the results of this study on my blog soon. Indeed, you have just inspired another idea for an article for my blog.

I find that any argument for the existence of God to be full of holes. This is why I decline to argue for His existence anymore. Because ultimately, it comes down to where one is going to put his faith. I have no problem with placing atheistic/naturalistic arguments against God on the same plain as arguments for Him. This is because NO ONE is ever going to prove their position. ALL arguments whether for or against have holes in them. Instead, I'll fall back on Hebrews 11:6 : And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.

If I am mistaken in this, I'll never figure it out because I won't be around to say, "I was wrong." Take note: this IS NOT my rationale for choosing to believe in God. It is my rationale for not arguing for His existence.
 
abcaines said:
I think you have done justice to the ontological argument for the existence of God in very few words. I say this because I have been looking into St. Anselm (and others) because of a study you have inspired. I am hoping to publish the results of this study on my blog soon. Indeed, you have just inspired another idea for an article for my blog.

I find that any argument for the existence of God to be full of holes. This is why I decline to argue for His existence anymore. Because ultimately, it comes down to where one is going to put his faith. I have no problem with placing atheistic/naturalistic arguments against God on the same plain as arguments for Him. This is because NO ONE is ever going to prove their position. ALL arguments whether for or against have holes in them. Instead, I'll fall back on Hebrews 11:6 : And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.

If I am mistaken in this, I'll never figure it out because I won't be around to say, "I was wrong." Take note: this IS NOT my rationale for choosing to believe in God. It is my rationale for not arguing for His existence.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I shall save this for future reflection and use.

I often feel that when it is demanded that I "prove God's existence" I am put in a similar bind as "have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
 
subllibrm said:
I often feel that when it is demanded that I "prove God's existence" I am put in a similar bind as "have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
Click to expand...
Thank you for your input. I have never applied this idea to the existence debate. It is a valid analogy. It may find its way into my discussions on the topic.
 
abcaines said:
I think you have done justice to the ontological argument for the existence of God in very few words. I say this because I have been looking into St. Anselm (and others) because of a study you have inspired. I am hoping to publish the results of this study on my blog soon. Indeed, you have just inspired another idea for an article for my blog.

I find that any argument for the existence of God to be full of holes. This is why I decline to argue for His existence anymore. Because ultimately, it comes down to where one is going to put his faith. I have no problem with placing atheistic/naturalistic arguments against God on the same plain as arguments for Him. This is because NO ONE is ever going to prove their position. ALL arguments whether for or against have holes in them. Instead, I'll fall back on Hebrews 11:6 : And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.

If I am mistaken in this, I'll never figure it out because I won't be around to say, "I was wrong." Take note: this IS NOT my rationale for choosing to believe in God. It is my rationale for not arguing for His existence.
Click to expand...
Thank you for understanding my point and admission of uncertainty (at a point, of course). We all put faith into something and I'm totally fine with coming to different conclusions as long as we respectfully allow each other to make individual conclusions as well. :)

Though this list isn't entirely of my personal doing, I have found theism seems to fall within 1-6 categories. My personal opinion is God exists within a combination of these descriptions but I pretty much reject the first altogether.

1. God as super-being. Most religions believe this. God is man with other-worldly traits and sinless perfection. Example: Jesus healing the sick, walking on water, dead brought back to life, etc.
2. God is hyper-being. God is something that exists beyond human conception that no man can really comprehend. (Usually supported by Job and Paul.)
3. God is ground of being. God is in everything and consists of everything from time to material. "In him we live and move and have our being"
4. God is event/disruption - that something good or bad that comes out of nowhere and changes the directions in our lives. Example: burning bush. Abraham's call to leave Ur. Mary's pregnancy. Noah's flood. Paul being knocked off his horse. The event itself is considered "God" not meaning God is the causation of event.
5. God is love/justice. "God is love." When we act in love or assist in justice, we are "sharing God".
6. God is dead. Hegel defines it this way: "The pure concept, however, or infinity, as the abyss of nothingness in which all being sinks, must characterize the infinite pain, which previously was only in culture historically and as the feeling on which rests modern religion, the feeling that God Himself is dead, (the feeling which was uttered by Pascal, though only empirically, in his saying: Nature is such that it marks everywhere, both in and outside of man, a lost God), purely as a phase, but also as no more than just a phase, of the highest idea."

Side note: Point 6 is something about which both Christians and atheists agree: It's absurdity to believe that God died. I believe the cross effectively puts theism and atheism on either side of the same coin, but that's just me. :)
 
Last edited:
subllibrm said:
Yet God seemed to know who he was.

Exodus 3:13-15​

13 Then Moses said to God, “Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they say to me, ‘What is His name?’ what shall I say to them?”
14 And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ” 15 Moreover God said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: ‘The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations.’

And Jesus claimed the same for Himself thereby providing us with a "being" with whom we can interact, have a relationship and who we can worship as the one true God.
Click to expand...
Certainly the son of an english prof would know that AM is a "being" verb. The purposeful ignorance of one trying to sound so wise is astounding.
 
Smellin Coffee said:
FYI, I am NOT arguing for Unitarianism. I don't believe it.

The point I was making is that hermeneutic is relative and the Evangelical hermeneutic differs from that of Unitarians who are also biblically educated.

At the core, the argument really isn't about whether or not Jesus was God but rather about whether or not Evangelical/Protestant hermeneutic is the ONLY correct one since sources of confirmation bias (on both sides) are being used. The folks with the "correct" hermeneutic become the sole possessors of truth and I would suggest there is no way to confirm a single hermeneutic is the only correct one.

It's fine for you to believe what you wish just as it's fine for Unitarians as well. It's fine to gather with groups of like-mindedness'. What's not fine is to claim to be arbiter of absolute truth from God so that "truth" must be dispensed only by those who espouse those ideas with intention to be imposed on those who disagree with that particular interpretation of it.

Unitarians don't hold the truth. Evangelicals/Fundamentalists don't hold the truth. And neither do I.
Click to expand...

But Somebody unequivocally DID claim absolute truth, and to be ABSOLUTE TRUTH, regardless of any navel-gazing postmodern ambiguity.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
 
ALAYMAN said:
But Somebody unequivocally DID claim absolute truth, and to be ABSOLUTE TRUTH, regardless of any navel-gazing postmodern ambiguity.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Click to expand...
Or perhaps there is other hermeneutic to interpret that statement in context of Judaism. ;)

musingsfromabricolage.org

Jesus as the “Way of Life”: Deconstructing John 14:6

{Thoughts on the Lectionary Gospel text for the 5th Sunday of Easter: John 14:1-14} “I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me.” This declaration by…
musingsfromabricolage.org musingsfromabricolage.org
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top