A Reform-minded Seventh-day Adventist forum In our aim to exalt everything important, first and foremost, we seek to promote a clear understanding of Daniel, Revelation, the three angels' messages and the alpha and omega of apostasy.
Posted: Fri May 16, 2003 1:48 am Post subject: Logical proof that Jesus is not God
1) God cannot die.
2) Jesus died.
3) Suppose Jesus is God.
4) by 2) and 3) God died
5) but by 1) God cannot die so 4) contradicts 1)
6) therefore 3) is false so Jesus is not God.
Now, most Protestants may make the objection that Jesus only died physically but not spiritually. For Seventh Day Adventists, however, when one dies, they stop existing ( soul sleep ), so when SDA's say Jesus died, they mean Jesus stopped existing. But since God is non-contingent ( if God exists ), God does not stop existing.
It would not do to use the Trinity to solve this problem.
1) Jesus is considered by Christian doctrine to be fully God, in which case Jesus possesses all the perfections held by the other two members of the Trinity, which includes immortality.
2) There would also be the case of God the Trinity being altered ( being reduced to two Beings instead of three ) in contradiction to the Trinity being immutable.
Now if the above is logically valid, it would also disprove the bible as well, so it would inadvisable for you to ignore it if you still wish to maintain a rational belief in it.
The Spirit of truth is consistent with Scripture. Revelation from God and Jesus Christ has a higher order of validity than naively simplistic sentential logic.
The Spirit of truth is consistent with Scripture. Revelation from God and Jesus Christ has a higher order of validity than naively simplistic sentential logic.
How can Jesus Christ have a higher order of validity than Logic, based on the eternal, immutable Principle of all existence? Logic is absolute. Jesus Christ is not absolute given the very fact that he died. How can a non-absolute supercede an absolute?
Now answer me this. You Christians are fond of claiming that Logic was created by God. If that is so why would Logic lie about God by claiming that someone is not God when they really are? Why would God create something that lies about him? If God did indeed create Logic as you Christians believe, then It must tell the truth about God, hense if It says that Jesus is not God, Jesus is not God.
If world-class mathematicians can’t resolve Russell’s paradox, what makes you believe you can judge the mysteries of Scripture without an intimate understanding of the details?
There is no such thing as a "set of all sets" or a "set of all sets that do not contain themselves". Such "constructs" are non realizable as they require that their meaning be completed before their meaning is complete. Say we have a "set of all sets" S. Let's say all sets other than S are a, b, c, d.
S = { a, b, c, d, S }
We may have the meaning a, b, c, d but we must first have the meaning of S before the meaning of the S is complete. But the meaning of S can only be completed after we complete the meaning of S. This is contradictory. S is therefore meaningless as a set. To demand it is a set is to demand a contradiction.
This problem is inherent in certain aledged paradoxes ( Liar's "Paradox" for instance ). The object the "paradox" presents references itself, requiring that the object's construction precede it's construction.
1) All men either shave themselves or are shaved by the barber.
Not inconsistent. The barber could shave himself and at the same time be shaved by the barber. The "paradox" actually arises when we ignore this possibility.
2) The barber only shaves those who do not shave themselves.
This is false. Again, it ignores the case of the barber being shaved. After this claim ( which is made without the case of the barber being shaved ), the case of the barber being shaved is brought up leading to our "paradox". This is nothing more than a tactical ignoring and disignoring of parts of the scenerio.
Quote:
If world-class mathematicians can’t resolve Russell’s paradox, what makes you believe you can judge the mysteries of Scripture without an intimate understanding of the details?
It is the understanding of mathmaticians that there is no such thing as a "set of all sets" or a "set of all sets that do not contain themselves". There is no need to resolve what is not there.
What you have done is use the arguement from authority which is a fallacy. Just because some authority in some field accept or cannot refute some idea does not mean that such idea is true.
If that were the case then would you not have to accept evolution which is regarded as true by various world-class biologists?
The greatest limitation to your argument is that you are presupposing a notoriously naïve thesis about Jesus Christ that just isn’t Biblical.
You cannot prove the bible true just by claiming it is true, especially if the bible is being brought into question.
If we cannot use Logic to determine who is or who is not God, then how are you to refute the claims made by various religions that claim they worship the true God? If they do not believe the bible, using it would be pointless. If Logic is invalid, then we couldn't use science either which is based on Logic. We would have no recourse to disprove their claims.
A more perfect illustration of Russell’s paradox is wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics. When physicists set up detectors to penetrate the mystery of wave interference in the famous double slit experiment (to see which slit photons actually go through), the wave patterns disappear and only particle behavior is seen.
Physics is like theology: True understanding comes from experience. It’s our encounter with the universe that guides our understanding. There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy. What can human reasoning achieve by working in a vacuum?
According to the Bible, as interpreted by conservative Christians, Jesus was fully God and fully man. The Bible doesn’t teach that divinity died. The Bible teaches that Jesus was required to experience temptation, hunger, thirst and death. Christ took upon Himself a human nature. Your argument isn’t against Scripture. You’re opposed to an imaginary contrivance of your own wishful thinking.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
