Search results

OK, I have re-read it. The question stands: I still see no definition of "good" in the quote.

Where did he define "good?"

I don't see where Jesus denies being good, so you'll have to show me that one. Anyway, the P1 issue is "WAS JESUS GOOD? Was he? Never mind whether or not he said so. WAS HE? Yes or no, @Wrangler?

I've touched on this in another thread with @Wrangler, but it's worth repeating the syllogism here: P1 Jesus is good; P2 No one is good save God alone; therefore, C Jesus is God. I happen to believe that Jesus is indeed God (although elements of his divinity were set aside while he walked...

We seem to be miscommunicating. There is NO sense of father that MEANS brother. I've said so twice now. But there is a sense of father, and of brother, that is not biological. And as a result of this, God could be our Father and Jesus our Brother yet both be God, because -- for the last time...

Why would you surmise this? It isn't true. I like syllogisms. (I particularly like exploring invalid ones.) Your syllogism is invalid if it doesn't hold across all definitions of "father" and "brother." It's that simple. In formal logic truth functions, we would express your syllogism as...

Your son having a son doesn't make him your Dad. I never suggested anything like that. What I said was that my biological father was also my brother (in Christ -- due to our shared faith) -- so there exist definitions of "father" (e.g., biological) and "brother" (e.g., in Christ) which are not...

God is fully capable of doing that. Indeed, He needs to talk "down" to us that way if he wants to appeal to human reason.

I don't have, nor need to have, a definition of "brother" that MEANS "father" in order to disprove the validity of your proposed syllogism. All I need for that task is an instance of "brother" and "father" not being mutually exclusive. And I've given you one.

No, I am suggesting that God has no need for and doesn't use logic. We do. Man can attempt to define Him "within a logical framework." He does not need to define Himself in any framework. That doesn't make him illogical. It makes Him alogical. He doesn't need to demonstrate reasoning...

There are lots of flaws in my example! I used it only to show that the same type of flaws plagued @Wrangler's example.

I'm unconvinced by your syllogism, Anselm! But to your last question, my answer is No. I don't think God reasons syllogistically. I think He intuits everything. We need logic. He doesn't.

I've been more disappointed with the logical analysis proffered as so-called "proofs" for and against the Trinity. For example, @Wrangler posited that and my efforts to explain that his syllogism was not valid across all definitions of "father" and "brother" (my Dad, for example, is my...

Superficial at best. You?

Discussion with whom is pointless? With JWs? I haven't found that to be true.

Let me ask you this, @Dan Clarkston: is the version of 1 John 5 in Codex Sinaiticus and in Codex Vatcianus and in Codex Alexandrinus a forgery, unfaithful to the Apostle John's original? Three possible answers here: (a) Yes, (b) No, (c) I don't know. I'm going with (c). If you are going...

It's not just ME who doesn't know. Take a look at the earliest Greek codicies, and you'll see the discrepancy. Tell you what. Let's start with English translations, since that is my first language. Look at how FEW have the formula you quoted" 1 John 5:7 - Bible Gateway

He absolutely WAS led by the Holy Spirit to write what he wrote! That's not in dispute. The question is, WHAT did he actually write in 1 John 5:7? We don't know, because many of the earliest extant versions of the Greek omit the language you quoted.

No. I'm saying that Scripture consists of what the original authors originally wrote, and with no original manuscripts still on the planet and only copies of copies of copies of copies of original manuscripts, the earliest of which do not agree with each other, we need to be cautious in...

As one Trinitarian to another, I will venture some friendly advice: Don't rely on 1 John 5:7. It may be spurious. The Johannine Comma