Binyawmene
Junior
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2023
- Messages
- 417
- Reaction score
- 326
- Points
- 63
- Location
- Ohio
- Faith
- Reformed Christian. Trinitarian/Hypostatic Unionist.
- Country
- USA
You on the other hand have no business laying claim to having logic or a basic understanding of hermeneutics.
Seriously? I have every right to use critical thinking skills in discussions. After all logic simply is an analytical critique and assessment of arguments. Which is perfectly valid on discussions and also by pointing out logical fallacies in your opponent. The difference here in our discussion is that my logical argument is valid and yours is fallacious. My argument is simple and logical, "Jesus Christ is both God and Man" although you will not find that phraseology specifically stated in Scriptures, but the meaning of the phrase is 'drawn out' from the whole of Scriptures exegetically. So let's scratch underneath the surface and get to the root of this discussion. Here is my line of reasoning that you dismissed with alternative interpretations, fallacious reasoning, and asserted claims that I was debunked.
For example, there are certain Scriptures that claims that "Jesus Christ is God" (John 20:28, Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13, etc. to be true, (i.e. Also divine titles/names and divine attributes ascribed to Christ can be accounted for, according to the Divine Nature). And certain Scriptures that claims that "Jesus Christ is Man" (John 8:39-40, Acts 2:22, 1 Timothy 2:5, etc. to be true, (i.e. Also human titles/names and human attributes ascribed to Christ can be account for, according to the Human Nature). The whole of Scriptures is the best interpreter, "Jesus Christ is God," "Jesus Christ is Man," Therefore, "Jesus Christ is both God and Man". This provides a deeper meaning and a clearer picture of the topic.
The black bold in the about indent is a Conjunction Introduction (^I): G, M |- G ^ M
Proposition A. Jesus Christ is God.
Proposition B. Jesus Christ is Man.
Proposition C. Therefore, Jesus Christ is both God and Man.
Your whole propositional argument (or should I say, "that faulty line of reasoning") is based on "Jesus Christ is man negates him being God" (fallacy of Denying a Conjunct). That occurs when you claim one part of the conjunction is false and the other must be true. Which has influenced the way you interpret Scriptures and how the course of this discussion came to be. I don't need to go toe to toe with you Scripturally because you don't reason but only deny. Then you reassert "Jesus Christ is a man." That goes nowhere in discussion. Besides, anyone who knows basic logic would have acknowledged my line of reasoning and your fallacy.
This is your faulty line of reasoning a Fallacy of Denying a Conjunct: ~(G ^ M), ~G |- M
Proposition A. Jesus Christ is not both God and Man.
Proposition B. Jesus Christ is not God.
Proposition C. Therefore, Jesus Christ is Man.
I would assume you don't know what a real refutation is or even how to present one. But I am curious if you even know how to negate a logical conjunction. After all you said: "You on the other hand have no business laying claim to having logic or a basic understanding of hermeneutics." Let's see you demonstrate a negated conjunction logically for all the readers in this thread. Fingers crossed, but I'm leading towards the idea you are clueless when it comes to logic.
Two, essentially what your premise is is that the Scripture does not have to make sense. For example, the Trinity is not explicitly stated or described in the Bible and yet here you are believing in it and telling others to do the same. The Trinity is pieced together by telling others which verses to look at and in which way to understand them. Jesus or the apostles never "revealed" which verses to go look at in order to piece together the Trinity doctrine. The Trinity isn't scripture. I hope you can at least admit that. That means it's still a great mystery.
In other words, you don't know how to is 'drawn out' a meaning from the whole of Scriptures exegetically. And the origins of a term and phrase doesn't matter. It's like saying "omnipresence" is not mentioned in Scripture, and you could possibly trace "omnipresence" to Greek philosophy. Should you reject using the term omnipresence? Of course not, the term is exegetically drawn out from the whole of Scriptures. We simply use a term to label the Biblical concept as omnipresence.