Are you looking for a reason to believe?

[makesends]

I am curious to know which Christian Theology book teaches paradoxes in Scripture.
And if possible, can you provide us with a quote.

It is to humans that paradoxes appear to contradict statements; when we know better, because we can believe both statements. The fact that we can't reconcile both doesn't mean that they contradict. We recognize our limitations, and when we find ourselves unable to reconcile both statements, we name it 'paradox'.

Look at God's attributes of Transcendence and Immanence.

Can you reconcile the Trinity with Monotheism? Only partially, at best.

Consider the many instances of things God says are so, and yet will be (in fuller measure?). "Already, but not yet".

Here's a few, some of which I have wondered at for years, some of which are sufficiently explainable, but are still paradoxical.

14 Biblical Paradoxes Every Christian Should Know - Lifeway Research

When pulled out of context these snippets of Scripture can be misunderstood, twisted, and stripped of their true meaning.

research.lifeway.com

 

[makesends]

Okay, believe as you like.
I disagree with lots of Romanism, but the Trinity is one thing they have right.

They have the fact of it right. Their teaching, not so much.

 

[LeviR]

They have the fact of it right. Their teaching, not so much.

I’m not arguing the fact that Christ is identified as both Lord and God in the O.T. And the New.
My contention is with their idea of him having two natures when born of Mary or even today.
It is only when they try to fuse a dual nature upon him that the paradox begins and a three person, One God, Trinity is developed.
My understanding is that Jesus will rule the Kingdom of God as the Lord God of Israel. And the O.T. Text that speak of him as God in that capacity are prophecy and refer to him during that time.
The identifying him as God in the N.T. Is due to the Spirit of the Father that was upon him without measure.
And that is why everything he said and did he credited to the Father.
I believe he was and is the actual son of God by both his birth of a woman as fully man and his resurrection from the dead with the nature of his Father whereby his nature is no more of that of mortal man.
For me, this solves the contradictions and confusion of language developed by the RCC.
And rather than claiming Jesus had a God because of his human nature while being God at the same time, the Scripture tells us he had a God then and still does. Even when his nature is no longer that of mortal man, but like his Father. His Father was, and still is his God, and the One True God of all.

 

[Binyawmene]

It is to humans that paradoxes appear to contradict statements; when we know better, because we can believe both statements. The fact that we can't reconcile both doesn't mean that they contradict. We recognize our limitations, and when we find ourselves unable to reconcile both statements, we name it 'paradox'.

This is an interesting thought you've mention. Have you ever read my thread on paradoxes?

Look at God's attributes of Transcendence and Immanence.

Can you reconcile the Trinity with Monotheism? Only partially, at best.

Consider the many instances of things God says are so, and yet will be (in fuller measure?). "Already, but not yet".

I don't see this being a paradox.

Here's a few, some of which I have wondered at for years, some of which are sufficiently explainable, but are still paradoxical.

14 Biblical Paradoxes Every Christian Should Know - Lifeway Research

When pulled out of context these snippets of Scripture can be misunderstood, twisted, and stripped of their true meaning.

research.lifeway.com

I appreciate the link. Even though those Bible verses are taken out of context. But I still don't consider it to be a paradox.

 

[Arial]

renewingyourmind.org/2019/05/04/contradiction-and-paradox

 

[Binyawmene]

They have the fact of it right. Their teaching, not so much.

Let's say a person made a claim, "The Hypostatic Union is a paradox." The person's claim, therefore, the person's burden of proof. I think a lot of people don't understand the subject they are trying to refute. If I ask a person to define the word paradox for example. He can google or bing search the definition. That doesn't mean a person knows the subject under discussion. A person can say couple of words in Spanish. That doesn't make him fluent speaker since he doesn't know Spanish. Or defining a word in Greek using lexicon or demonstrating a Greek grammar rule. That doesn't make a person an expert in Greek language. Especially when a person doesn't know the Greek alphabet. Like a four-year-old child who uses big words in a sentence. Except the child doesn't know what that big word means. If they don't understand the subjects like Hypostatic Union and Logic, then the definition they are defining is pointless. If you ask the person to set up a paradox and demonstrate a contradiction. The person will be clueless because the person doesn't know the subjects. Nor would they know how to apply it in actual discussions. What you are going to get is evasions and self-proclaimed denials. That is one of an aspect of being a troll.

 

[makesends]

This is an interesting thought you've mention. Have you ever read my thread on paradoxes?



I don't see this being a paradox.



I appreciate the link. Even though those Bible verses are taken out of context. But I still don't consider it to be a paradox.

I didn't even look at their verses. I was just referring to the list. But I'm guessing you've got a different definition of paradox. Will be busy today, but I will try to look at your thread when I get back.

 

[makesends]

Let's say a person made a claim, "The Hypostatic Union is a paradox." The person's claim, therefore, the person burden of proof. I think a lot of people don't understand the subject they are trying to refute. If I ask a person to define the word paradox for example. He can google or bing search the definition. That doesn't mean a person knows the subject under discussion. A person can say couple of words in Spanish. That doesn't make him fluent speaker since he doesn't know Spanish. Or defining a word in Greek using lexicon or demonstrating a Greek grammar rule. That doesn't make a person an expert in Greek language. Especially when a person doesn't know the Greek alphabet. Like a four-year-old child who uses big words in a sentence. Except the child doesn't know what that big word means. If they don't understand the subjects like Hypostatic Union and Logic, then the definition they are define is pointless. If you ask the person to set up a paradox and demonstrate a contradiction. The person will be clueless because the person doesn't know the subjects. Nor would they know how to apply it in actual discussions. What you are going to get is evasions and self-proclaimed denials. That is one of an aspect of being a troll.

Granted the term paradox is subjective. (I thought that was rather obvious. God doesn't see any problem with truths needing reconciled.)

 

[Binyawmene]

I didn't even look at their verses. I was just referring to the list. But I'm guessing you've got a different definition of paradox. Will be busy today, but I will try to look at your thread when I get back.

Sure. Whenever you get the chance. I will enjoy your thoughts and critiques.

 

[Binyawmene]

Granted the term paradox is subjective. (I thought that was rather obvious. God doesn't see any problem with truths needing reconciled.)

You would argue that paradox is subjective. Interesting thought to say the least. I think a lot of people confuses "Antithesis of Christ" with a so-called "Paradox of Christ." For example: The phrase "Jesus Christ is both God and man" is a logical conjunction, which the idea isn't just limited to the phrase "both God and Man" when referring to Jesus Christ in Scriptures. There is also a exegetical structure pattern found in Scriptures of Jesus Christ's Divine attributes as being God and Human attributes as being Man.

This is evident from the fact that Jesus Christ has divine intelligence being omniscient and his human intelligence that increased. You can also say, "Jesus Christ is"... "both omniscient and ignorant," "both omnipresent and localized," and "both omnipotent and powerless." The list goes on and on, etc. These two opposite ideas are being jointed together in one compound proposition for a unique and contrasting framework. The doctrine defines these logical conjunctions to be parallel expression of oppositions, antithesis, from anti 'against' + tithenai "to place" or in other words, "a setting opposite or contrasting of ideas is expressed by parallelism of words that are the opposites of," and those ideas might not always be structurally opposites in the doctrine, for example, "both equal and subordinate" are opposites, and "both omnipotent and ignorant" are not opposites. But both structures are logically valid within the framework, so it's not always framed in oppositions to each other. Either way, this framework is to compare their indifferences and to emphasize the union.

 

[Mr GLee]

I’d say if your theology creates a paradox or contradiction it’s because your theology is incorrect.

They can cause a seemingly differences as a parable paradox . . .not a contradiction . Without parables Christ spoke not . Hiding the gospel understanding from the non-redeemed. .

 

[Arial]

I didn't even look at their verses. I was just referring to the list. But I'm guessing you've got a different definition of paradox. Will be busy today, but I will try to look at your thread when I get back.

Check out the link I gave in post #45.

I just checked it and see it didn't post as a link. I will try and get it to do so.

Renewing Your Mind | Contradiction and Paradox | May 4, 2019 Edition

Today, R.C. Sproul explains the difference between a contradiction and a paradox.

www.renewingyourmind.org

 

[Mr GLee]

You would argue that paradox is subjective. Interesting thought to say the least. I think a lot of people confuses "Antithesis of Christ" with a so-called "Paradox of Christ." For example: The phrase "Jesus Christ is both God and man" is a logical conjunction, which the idea isn't just limited to the phrase "both God and Man" when referring to Jesus Christ in Scriptures. There is also a exegetical structure pattern found in Scriptures of Jesus Christ's Divine attributes as being God and Human attributes as being Man.

This is evident from the fact that Jesus Christ has divine intelligence being omniscient and his human intelligence that increased. You can also say, "Jesus Christ is"... "both omniscient and ignorant," "both omnipresent and localized," and "both omnipotent and powerless." The list goes on and on, etc. These two opposite ideas are being jointed together in one compound proposition for a unique and contrasting framework. The doctrine defines these logical conjunctions to be parallel expression of oppositions, antithesis, from anti 'against' + tithenai "to place" or in other words, "a setting opposite or contrasting of ideas is expressed by parallelism of words that are the opposites of," and those ideas might not always be structurally opposites in the doctrine, for example, "both equal and subordinate" are opposites, and "both omnipotent and ignorant" are not opposites. But both structures are logically valid within the framework, so it's not always framed in oppositions to each other. Either way, this framework is to compare their indifferences and to emphasize the union.

Without the "Antithesis of Christ" (Parables). Christ in us spoke not.

Parables take away the oral traditions of dying mankind .

Parable teach us how to walk or understand the invisible things of Christ. They must be mixed or compared with the temporal historical or no gospel rest . ( Hebrew 4:1-2)

Parable or antithesis are used to create a clear, memorable contrast between opposing ideas to strengthen an argument or create a powerful impression.

On one occasion Christ gave his apostle Jesus the Son of man a series of parables and hid the gospel understanding .The other apostles got so confused they deceived the elect a new Alpha leader. As if Jesu went off the deep end. His own family suffered in that way . Most likely the most loneliest person . . save the Father.

 

[makesends]

Sure. Whenever you get the chance. I will enjoy your thoughts and critiques.

I posted to it.

Brings to mind the old Star Trek episode where a computer has taken over, and Kirk defeats it by saying something like, "This statement is a lie", which makes it overheat trying to resolve the statement.

 

[fastfredy0]

Brings to mind the old Star Trek episode where a computer has taken over, and Kirk defeats it by saying something like, "This statement is a lie", which makes it overheat trying to resolve the statement.

Is that the episode where the computer goes into an endless loop? The episode where some earth satellite merges with some other thing and was searching the universe for its 'creator' which it mistakenly thought was Kirk?

 

[makesends]

Is that the episode where the computer goes into an endless loop? The episode where some earth satellite merges with some other thing and was searching the universe for its 'creator' which it mistakenly thought was Kirk?

You seem to be mixing up two things. The first Star Trek movie (my favorite of all the ST movies) is about the cloud that has been built up around V-GER. That was looking for its creator. But there was no endless loop in that movie.

What I was talking about was a TV episode, probably 15 or 20 years older than that.

 

[fastfredy0]

You seem to be mixing up two things. The first Star Trek movie (my favorite of all the ST movies) is about the cloud that has been built up around V-GER. That was looking for its creator. But there was no endless loop in that movie.

What I was talking about was a TV episode, probably 15 or 20 years older than that.

I guess you're right. V-Ger rings a bell now. But I know there was an episode where some device is trying to destroy all things that were not perfect and Kirk tells it that it had made a mistake and the mistake was thinking Kirk was the creator (or so I thought) and the device recognized it made a mistake and was going to destroy itself so just before doing so Kirk tele-transports it into deep space. Is that the same as the V-GER episode?

I thought the odd numbered Kirk movies were the best IMO.

 

[makesends]

I guess you're right. V-Ger rings a bell now. But I know there was an episode where some device is trying to destroy all things that were not perfect and Kirk tells it that it had made a mistake and the mistake was thinking Kirk was the creator (or so I thought) and the device recognized it made a mistake and was going to destroy itself so just before doing so Kirk tele-transports it into deep space. Is that the same as the V-GER episode?

I thought the odd numbered Kirk movies were the best IMO.

Whoa. I believe you are right again! What's that, three times now? Three is odd.

I'm now thinking there were two of those TV episodes, because what you are saying now rings a bell.

 

[fastfredy0]

Whoa. I believe you are right again! What's that, three times now? Three is odd.

... let's examine this further
Premise 1: I've been right 3 times
Premise 2: We agreed with each other 99% of the time
Premise 3: We've made, say, 1000 statements of fact
Conclusion: We are wrong over 99% of the time. We'd do better flipping a coin to determine truth.

 

[makesends]

... let's examine this further
Premise 1: I've been right 3 times
Premise 2: We agreed with each other 99% of the time
Premise 3: We've made, say, 1000 statements of fact
Conclusion: We are wrong over 99% of the time. We'd do better flipping a coin to determine truth.

Well, what I meant, and should have said, is that once again you are right when I was wrong. That should imply adjusting your statistics, there.