You are a pagan in the jungles of New Guinea..... ...and this piece of paper drops out of a plane. It reads: That which was from the beginning, which we haveMessage 1 of 50 , Aug 1, 2004View SourceYou are a pagan in the jungles of New Guinea..... ...and this piece of paper
drops out of a plane. It reads:
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen
with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the
Word of life;
2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and
shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was
manifested unto us;)
3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may
have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and
with his Son Jesus Christ.
4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.
If your information about Jesus Christ was limited to these four verses,
what would you know about him?
(This is coming up in our local church Bible Study soon. I am just wondering
if this question is in fact more of a statement, i.e. that these verses show
a great deal about Jesus Christ, such as:
that he is eternal
etc...(These have been mentioned in a sermon)
Whereas I'm not sure you can say much anything about Jesus Christ, except
that the author has fellowship with him, and that Jesus has a father.
I don't know why, but I feel a bit uncomfortable even with the question,
like it's cutting off scripture from scripture and saying that that doesn't
But it does matter, doesn't it? We need to take the scriptures as a whole.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Hi K ... Pleasure. I hope you enjoy it and that it clarifies some things for you. ... Ok. Well I am still puzzled. You seem to be quoting Ari with approvalMessage 50 of 50 , Aug 18, 2004View SourceHi K
On Thursday, August 12, 2004, at 03:34 AM, kjcj wrote:
> First, thanks for the book link, George.
Pleasure. I hope you enjoy it and that it clarifies some things for you.
> George, on the contrary (pardon the
> pun <g> - at the same time it is also
> intended to illustrate my further point
> below...), I have explicitly urged that
> people not only can, but do often hold
> (usually unwittingly) contradictory
> beliefs. The examples I gave were to
> illustrate another matter altogether;
> and I am sorry if I have caused you
> to misunderstand, as I believe you
> misunderstand me. More on this
> follows next.
Ok. Well I am still puzzled. You seem to be quoting Ari with approval
which led me to believe that you agree with his point. Could you please
If one takes as you write:
> So, then too, a) "believe that p" and b)
> "disbelieve that p" these are extremes,
> not by examining the "p" but in looking
> at the "believe/disbelieve". It seems to
> me that for Ari a) and b) respectively
> represented the two extremes with no
> possible intermediaries.
Are you agreeing with this? If so and if "believe that p" and
"disbelieve that p" are the extremes then it appears that this latter
is the same as believing that p is not the case. Since you (or Ari)
exclude the possibility of withholding belief then I cannot see how
"disbelieve that p" differs from "believe that not p". That being the
case it is difficult to see how you can both affirm that a person can
believe a contradiction and agree with Ari that a person cannot believe
and disbelieve a proposition. Please sort out my misunderstanding here.
> He that is not with me is against me.
> He that gathereth not with me
> scattereth abroad.
> He that is not with me is against me:
> He that gathereth not with me
> *For he that is not against
> us is for us.*
> Can we suspend being against Jesus
> and being with Jesus? Can we
> withhold believing or disbelieving
> Jesus? Can we not scatter but
> neither gather with Jesus? Is Jesus
> wrong when he claims "For he that
> is not against us is for us?"
I am not clear as to what the relevance of these quotations is to the
current thread (which is after all about whether there are self
justifying propositions). These are revelation regarding the particular
state of affairs wrt the Christ. Of course people can suspend judgement
regarding Jesus; but the point of these quotes is that even such as do
that are counted as being against him.
> Clark writes, "To be sure, the author
> was not completely wrong... In logic
> _some_ can mean one as well as
> many or few. However, when the main
> idea is certainly one, such as Socrates,
> the logical form requires All. Socrates
> was in a class by himself, and so we
> talk about all that class... We surely do
> not mean "Some Socrateses"... The
> so-called singular proposition is simply
> an ordinary universal." [L, pgs. 32, 90].
Which edition are you using
> Therefore, is then the contradictory
> of A, "All Socrates is...", O, "Some
> Socrateses is not..."? Or is it in fact the
> same as the contrary E, "No Socrates
> is..."? Similarly with E, "No Socrates
> is...", is the contradictory, I, "Some
> Socrateses is..."? Or is it same as the
> contrary A, "All Socrates is..."?
> Clark certainly seems to question I/O
> "Some Socrateses" and seems to be
> saying that the contradictory of A is E,
> in the case of singulars, is he not? We
> surely do not mean "Some Socrateses."
I see nothing in the quote you give that would lead one to conclude
that Clark is questioning I/O. (especially in the wider context of the
point the in making in the book).