- John West
- Administrator
Offline - Registered: 6/25/2015
- Posts: 1,254
Re: William Lane Craig and Kevin Scharp | Is There Evidence for God?
Dennis:
John, could you please draw a distinction between contingent truths and necessary truths, and how 'violating' necessary truths could probably lead into the kind of contradiction Dr. Scharp is looking for, whereas the former wouldn't? Or is this wrongheaded somewhere?
It may be helpful to rough out a distinction between diachronic necessity and diachronic contingency. A scientific theory is diachronically necessarily true if and only if it's true at all times. It's diachronically contingently true if and only if it's not true at all times.[1]
I doubt Kevin thinks our scientific theories are necessarily true in the sense that they're true in every possible world. He might think the correct scientific theories are all diachronically necessarily true. That is, true at all times.
[1]I don't mean for these to be rigorous. Temporal modalities are minefields.
- iwpoe
- Member
Offline
- From: Knoxville, TN
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 1,080
Re: William Lane Craig and Kevin Scharp | Is There Evidence for God?
KevinScharp wrote:
Why think that that is metaphysically possible? If Jesus's body disappears, and it had mass, and no new mass/energy is added by God, then then we're talking about a mathematical contradiction. That's not metaphysically possible.
Technically Jesus' body rose into the sky until it was no longer visible. We don't know what was done with its mass/energy:
Acts 1:9:
And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.
[καὶ ταῦτα εἰπὼν βλεπόντων αὐτῶν ἐπήρθη καὶ νεφέλη ὑπέλαβεν αὐτὸν ἀπὸ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν.]
It could have been converted to energy, stored somewhere, chopped to bits, who knows? It's not even clear that after the resurrection itself the body is material in the way we normally understand material any longer. I don't know how God reconciles his actions with his general laws. Jesus claims to no be a spirit/ghost after his ressurection, but other than that, it's not clear.So he has a material body -- and it ended up in heaven, which I'm assuming is not a location in spacetime. So some mass/energy disappeared.
No. Christ does not sit bodily as God. That makes no metaphysical sense. God didn't one day become material in his being. A major aspect of classical christology centers around this. Assuming that the post-resserection body is in any way material it would have needed to be shed and physically destroyed or placed somewhere intact or made to not be.
Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
- iwpoe
- Member
Offline
- From: Knoxville, TN
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 1,080
Re: William Lane Craig and Kevin Scharp | Is There Evidence for God?
Sweet, thank you. Yes, I think it affects the cosmological argument. I went over this a bit in the discussion, but didn't really explore it well. I can write up something on this point this afternoon.
Yeah, that's going to be a big deal for us. There has been something of a minor renaissance in philosophical theism after Plantiga and we classical theists are much happier with the traditional ontology because we reject certain ontological ideas that may amount to a rejection of what you're calling divine psychology. Craig might not be defensible on those grounds (without finding a way to reject your argument itself) since I do think he relies on divine psychology in a rather mundane sense, but we don't.
It's not worth talking about until I know more from you.
Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
- Jason
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 2/19/2016
- Posts: 146
Re: William Lane Craig and Kevin Scharp | Is There Evidence for God?
Technically Jesus' body rose into the sky until it was no longer visible. We don't know what was done with its mass/energy:
Acts 1:9:
And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.
[καὶ ταῦτα εἰπὼν βλεπόντων αὐτῶν ἐπήρθη καὶ νεφέλη ὑπέλαβεν αὐτὸν ἀπὸ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν.]
It could have been converted to energy, stored somewhere, chopped to bits, who knows? It's not even clear that after the resurrection itself the body is material in the way we normally understand material any longer. I don't know how God reconciles his actions with his general laws. Jesus claims to no be a spirit/ghost after his ressurection, but other than that, it's not clear.So he has a material body -- and it ended up in heaven, which I'm assuming is not a location in spacetime. So some mass/energy disappeared.
No. Christ does not sit bodily as God. That makes no metaphysical sense. God didn't one day become material in his being. A major aspect of classical christology centers around this. Assuming that the post-resserestion body is in any way material it would have needed to be shed and physically destroyed or placed somewhere intact or made to not be.
Just to give context of what the Bible says about this here are a few verses related to this
- iwpoe
- Member
Offline
- From: Knoxville, TN
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 1,080
Re: William Lane Craig and Kevin Scharp | Is There Evidence for God?
Just to give context of what the Bible says about this here are a few verses related to this
Jesus has the aditional complication that unlike mere men, he's God. So the Godhead itself cannot be subject to change because of whatever it is that is going on in the incarnation, resurrection, and ascension.
This is actually the place where I'm most inclined to part company with Christianity. As Nietzsche says "that ghastly paradox of a 'God on the cross,'" It better not turn out that subsistent being as such is a dead guy on a hunk of wood.
Aquinas tries to unwind a lot of this problem by appealing to the two natures of Christ, and I agree that this is the best approach available to him.
Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
- Jason
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 2/19/2016
- Posts: 146
Re: William Lane Craig and Kevin Scharp | Is There Evidence for God?
Just to give context of what the Bible says about this here are a few verses related to this
Jesus has the aditional complication that unlike mere men, he's God. So the Godhead itself cannot be subject to change because of whatever it is that is going on in the incarnation, resurrection, and ascension.
This is actually the place where I'm most inclined to part company with Christianity. As Nietzsche says "that ghastly paradox of a 'God on the cross,'" It better not turn out that subsistent being as such is a dead guy on a hunk of wood.
Aquinas tries to unwind a lot of this problem by appealing to the two natures of Christ, and I agree that this is the best approach available to him.
Yup and I agree with the two natures of Christ, but my idea of sharing those verses is to support the fact that physical flesh and bones body will not be what will be in Heaven (from a Biblical perspective). Since I do not want to side track the awesome discussion here maybe I can pick your brain some other time and talk specifically about "God on the cross" topic. It is fascinating to say the least 
- iwpoe
- Member
Offline
- From: Knoxville, TN
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 1,080
Re: William Lane Craig and Kevin Scharp | Is There Evidence for God?
Yup and I agree with the two natures of Christ, but my idea of sharing those verses is to support the fact that physical flesh and bones body will not be what will be in Heaven (from a Biblical perspective). Since I do not want to side track the awesome discussion here maybe I can pick your brain some other time and talk specifically about "God on the cross" topic. It is fascinating to say the least
I was involved in my childhood with some conflict about human bodily resurrection, which is the only reason I wanted to make the distinction. If you think the coming resurrection isn't bodily then Christ's isn't going to be troubling, but if you do, then his ascension better not be the making of the Godhead into some kind of matter.
But yeah, if you want to talk about Nietzsche and "God on the cross" I can talk at length.
Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
- Due_Kindheartedness
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 3/14/2016
- Posts: 98
Re: William Lane Craig and Kevin Scharp | Is There Evidence for God?
I was involved in my childhood with some conflict about human bodily resurrection, which is the only reason I wanted to make the distinction. If you think the coming resurrection isn't bodily then Christ's isn't going to be troubling, but if you do, then his ascension better not be the making of the Godhead into some kind of matter.
But yeah, if you want to talk about Nietzsche and "God on the cross" I can talk at length.
Most Christians in the USA today think that the relationship of the divine nature to the human nature of Christ is something like God taking a human body "just like a glove takes a hand," but this is Apollonarianism, and if you believe it you're technically not a Christian. Christians believe in the Hypostatic Union, which is that one person (Jesus Chirst) has two natures (divine and human) and that these two natures are in some way "married." The marriage metaphor is used extensively in the writings of Paul.
- iwpoe
- Member
Offline
- From: Knoxville, TN
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 1,080
Re: William Lane Craig and Kevin Scharp | Is There Evidence for God?
I was involved in my childhood with some conflict about human bodily resurrection, which is the only reason I wanted to make the distinction. If you think the coming resurrection isn't bodily then Christ's isn't going to be troubling, but if you do, then his ascension better not be the making of the Godhead into some kind of matter.
But yeah, if you want to talk about Nietzsche and "God on the cross" I can talk at length.Most Christians in the USA today think that the relationship of the divine nature to the human nature of Christ is something like God taking a human body "just like a glove takes a hand," but this is Apollonarianism, and if you believe it you're technically not a Christian. Christians believe in the Hypostatic Union, which is that one person (Jesus Chirst) has two natures (divine and human) and that these two natures are in some way "married." The marriage metaphor is used extensively in the writings of Paul.
Sure, but the theological question that's arisen here in the context of discussing the miracle of ascension is what happened to the material of Christ's human body. It better not be in the Godhead, since that makes no metaphysical sense.
Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
- Jason
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 2/19/2016
- Posts: 146
Re: William Lane Craig and Kevin Scharp | Is There Evidence for God?
I was involved in my childhood with some conflict about human bodily resurrection, which is the only reason I wanted to make the distinction. If you think the coming resurrection isn't bodily then Christ's isn't going to be troubling, but if you do, then his ascension better not be the making of the Godhead into some kind of matter.
But yeah, if you want to talk about Nietzsche and "God on the cross" I can talk at length.Most Christians in the USA today think that the relationship of the divine nature to the human nature of Christ is something like God taking a human body "just like a glove takes a hand," but this is Apollonarianism, and if you believe it you're technically not a Christian. Christians believe in the Hypostatic Union, which is that one person (Jesus Chirst) has two natures (divine and human) and that these two natures are in some way "married." The marriage metaphor is used extensively in the writings of Paul.
Sure, but the theological question that's arisen here in the context of discussing the miracle of ascension is what happened to the material of Christ's human body. It better not be in the Godhead, since that makes no metaphysical sense.
I think the theological question is a good one but the point is Jesus's blood and flesh body was transformed into a spiritual body (what processes God used to do that I can only speculate). That means that He not only had the "properties" of a blood and flesh body e.g. eating but also "properties" of a spiritual body e.g. passing through walls. This I think would be why His second coming is like the Son of Man coming down from heaven and not be in need of being born of flesh again. Since Christ has "properties" of the spiritual body as well then being in heaven is not impossible.