God's Knowledge

Caroljeen said:
I've only read the title but I belief the reason for the atonement was multifactorial, not just one or even two causes. If you like the Christus Victor view, Greg Boyd is a strong advocate for it.

reknew.org

The "Christus Victor" View of the Atonement - Greg Boyd - ReKnew

God accomplished many things by having his Son become incarnate and die on Calvary. Through Christ God revealed the definitive truth about himself (Rom 5:8, cf. Jn 14:7-10); reconciled all things, including humans, to himself (2 Cor 5:18-19; Col 1:20-22), forgave us our sins (Ac 13:38; Eph 1:7)...
reknew.org reknew.org
Click to expand...

Thanks. The post is mostly about the ransom.
 
Eightcrackers said:
Which opens up a can of worms when paired with Romans 1:20 - how can the Bible say that everybody knows that Yahweh exists, and then later in the same book allow that not everybody believes?

Knowing without believing, is an absurd proposition.
Click to expand...
so it believing without knowing.
 
Caroljeen said:
so it believing without knowing.
Click to expand...
Absolutely not - "believing = knowing" is Tercon-nonsense.

Knowledge is a subset of belief - all knowledge is belief, but not all belief is knowledge - and the Bible's idea that people can know that Yahweh exists, but not believe it, is utter drivel.
 
Eightcrackers said:
Absolutely not - "believing = knowing" is Tercon-nonsense.

Knowledge is a subset of belief - all knowledge is belief, but not all belief is knowledge - and the Bible's idea that people can know that Yahweh exists, but not believe it, is utter drivel.
Click to expand...
The belief that Paul speaks of in Romans 10 is about Jesus, the man who died on the cross, was buried, and resurrected. In the section of Romans 1 you are talking about, Paul is not referring to a belief in Jesus.
 
Nouveau said:
Please just answer the question. I'm quite happy to go into more detail and address your above mistakes after you do so. Which of these two is the correct way of using "a form of" with respect to the statue made from clay?

Is the clay a form of the statue? Or is the statue a form of the clay?
Click to expand...

Is there a connection between your "clay" and "statue"?
 
Tercon said:
Is there a connection between your "clay" and "statue"?
Click to expand...
Answer my question, and I'll gladly tell you. Which of these two is the correct way of using "a form of" with respect to the statue made from clay?

Is the clay a form of the statue? Or is the statue a form of the clay?
 
Caroljeen said:
No one can believe until someone has told them about Jesus.
Click to expand...

Exactly. So, if someone has to tell you about something before you believe it, then when does it become your knowledge; before or after you believe it?

Caroljeen said:
That is knowledge before belief. Hearing the gospel (knowledge of the death, burial, and resurrection) of Jesus Christ comes BEFORE faith.
Click to expand...

No, that's belief before knowledge, as you can hear about something all your life, but it doesn't become the knowledge of God until you believe it.

Caroljeen said:
Here is more of the passage that does not support your claim that belief comes before knowledge.

Romans 10:14 But how are they to call on one in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him? 15 And how are they to proclaim him unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!” 16 But not all have obeyed the good news, for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our message?” 17 So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ.
Click to expand...

Strawman. Actually it does support my claim. Try reading verse 16 the one right before 17, what does it say?
 
Nouveau said:
Answer my question, and I'll gladly tell you. Which of these two is the correct way of using "a form of" with respect to the statue made from clay?

Is the clay a form of the statue? Or is the statue a form of the clay?
Click to expand...
Evasion, try again and this time read for comprehension. Stop running away and deal with what is being said to you.

No, if we can use "clay" "to form a statue", then in the same way we can use beliefs to form knowledge.

So, belief can be a kind or form of knowledge.

Form or Forms:
a: a type or kind of something
Coal is a form of carbon.
A rare/deadly form of cancer
A popular form of entertainment

b. one of several or many different ways in which something is seen, experienced, or produced.
The medicine can be taken in the form of a liquid or pill. = The medicine can be taken in pill or liquid form. His essays are now available in book form. [his essays have been published in a book]
the written/spoken form of the language
 
Tercon said:
Evasion...
Click to expand...
Yes, you keep evading. But I'll repeat the question anyway, in the hope that you might eventually answer. Which of these two is the correct way of using "a form of" with respect to the statue made from clay?

Is the clay a form of the statue? Or is the statue a form of the clay?
 
Tercon said:
Exactly. So, if someone has to tell you about something before you believe it, then when does it become your knowledge; before or after you believe it?
Click to expand...
As you are leaning about Christ, it becomes knowledge. Before you believe it.
Tercon said:
No, that's belief before knowledge, as you can hear about something all your life, but it doesn't become the knowledge of God until you believe it.
Click to expand...
There are different things we can know other than God.
I can know how to ride a bike or drive a car or put gas in my car or make fish chowder or the Greek alphabet.
Tercon said:
Strawman. Actually it does support my claim. Try reading verse 16 the one right before 17, what does it say?
Click to expand...
You have to hear the gospel before you can believe it (have faith in it). When Paul was roaming around the Meditarrean world preaching the gospel to those who have never heard it, some believed and some didn't. So not all believed it. But there wasn't anyone who believed it before they heard the gospel preached. You should take the whole passage together.

Verse 16 is talking about those who had the gospel preached to them, who has believed it the message? The preaching of the gospel to people who had never heard it gave them the knowledge to make a choice to believe it or not. It doesn't support your claim.

” 16 But not all have obeyed the good news, for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our message?” 17 So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ.
 
Eightcrackers said:
I'm sorry, but this is nonsense - it is not possible to know a thing without also believing it.
Click to expand...
How can you have knowledge of Jesus Christ if you don't know that he exists? Put yourself in the shoes of the 1st century non christians who were hearing about Jesus for the first time.

Not everyone who hears about Jesus (receives knowledge of Jesus) believes in him. You can have knowledge about fairy tales and santa claus and not believe in them.
 
Last edited:
Caroljeen said:
Not everyone who hears about Jesus (receives knowledge of Jesus) believes in him. You can have knowledge about fairy tales and santa claus and not believe in them.
Click to expand...
Somebody tells you something.
You don't believe it.
The thing happens to be true, but you are not aware of this.

Do you know the thing you were told?

Of course not.


It is not possible to know a thing without also believing that thing.
 
Eightcrackers said:
Somebody tells you something.
You don't believe it.
The thing happens to be true, but you are not aware of this.

Do you know the thing you were told?

Of course not.


It is not possible to know a thing without also believing that thing.
Click to expand...
I know what it meant to be an atheist and I believed it. Now I still know what is meant to be an atheist, but no longer believe it.
 
Caroljeen said:
I know what it meant to be an atheist and I believed it. Now I still know what is meant to be an atheist, but no longer believe it.
Click to expand...
Believe what? You keep switching scope - you went from "knowing atheism" (whatever that means), to knowing what it means to be an atheist.

Please give an example of a claim or proposition that you simultaneously know, but don't believe.
 
Eightcrackers said:
Believe what? You keep switching scope - you went from "knowing atheism" (whatever that means), to knowing what it means to be an atheist.

Please give an example of a claim or proposition that you simultaneously know, but don't believe.
Click to expand...
I thought I did. I'm not interested in arguing about this with you anymore.
 
Caroljeen said:
I thought I did. I'm not interested in arguing about this with you anymore.
Click to expand...
"I know that <Paris is the capital of France>, but I do not believe that <Paris is the capital of France>."

^This is drivel - is there any fact you could put into the <>, where it would not be drivel?

Because this is what's required for your "it is possible to know, without believing" to be true.
 
Nouveau said:
Yes, you keep evading. But I'll repeat the question anyway, in the hope that you might eventually answer. Which of these two is the correct way of using "a form of" with respect to the statue made from clay?

Is the clay a form of the statue? Or is the statue a form of the clay?
Click to expand...

Strawman and evasion.

Are you saying that there is a connection between the "clay" and "statue"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top