Long Term Doubt vs Strong Belief - what is more honest?

[Sanoy]

Except that neither "whoever" nor "he" is used in the original version, since it's obviously not in English. There are languages where the singular article does in certain cases have the force of "whoever" in English, and Greek is one of them. You are taking assumptions derived from the English construction and then applying them back to the Greek, and that doesn't work. You can't simultaneously appeal to the original Greek while focusing on sentence construction in English.



They are both singular constructions. πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων is every bit as singular as ὁ πιστεύων. Honestly, my suspicion would be that "πᾶς" is being used in the second because the full clause is "πᾶς ὁ ζῶν καὶ πιστεύων" (all who live and believe), which would be kind of disjointed without a pronoun of sorts to join the two participles, though it does certainly serve to reinforce the universal nature of the first sentence.

I will defer to @2PhiloVoid and drop it, though. I don't agree with the theological argument being made anyway, but you can't invoke the Greek original and then just talk about the difference between "he" and "whoever" in English. The question is how the Greek participle should be understood, not what the word "he" means in English.

Right, I'm not saying we consider it in English, I am and have been saying, that we use the source, as it is constructed. I am taking it's case, singular, not English. You can take the singular and turn it into a plural, but not without a reason. That is the whole point of my remark. I can't have this conversation in Greek, that is why I am using English words to refer to the Greek.

John 12:16 has a singular case, but it means all. The word in question does not mean "all" it means "the one". As the logical example I made in 191 shows you have to invoke the context to turn "the one" to a universal normative, because all and one are not logically free to interchange. If they were free to interchange Jesus would not need to add the universal declaration in verse 16, as verse 15 would have declared the universal message. The very fact that we have a verse 16 tells us that we cant turn "the one" to "all" on our own volition without contextual reason.

 

[Sanoy]

Personally, I'm not really seeing the overall relevance of being hog-tied on this lexical and semantic problem involving just one or two words that happen to sit in the middle of a phrase or statement within the biblical verses presently being beaten to death.

Basically it was a casual remark of confirmation to Redac about something she partially remembered. I suppose I made too much of it in not wanting to put something out there that was suspect.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Basically it was a casual remark of confirmation to Redac about something she partially remembered. I suppose I made too much of it in not wanting to put something out there that was suspect.

I understand brother. It's just that in this section, we're not supposed to argue with other Christians, at least not too intently or persistently, and I consider @Silmarien a virtual Christian sister. So, maybe we should reserve our fuel on this issue. Besides, I've been casually reading Blomberg's Handbook of New Testament Exegesis this morning and there are some issues in all of this that no one is even touching upon and I'm not sure any of us has that kind of expertise here ... at least, not yet.

 

[Silmarien]

I understand brother. It's just that in this section, we're not supposed to argue with other Christians

Wait, really? I thought that was only in the "Exploring Christianity" section?

I was going to get my status changed to "Anglican," but maybe I'll go get it changed to "pagan" instead if it means being able to fight with everyone with impunity.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Wait, really? I thought that was only in the "Exploring Christianity" section?

I was going to get my status changed to "Anglican," but maybe I'll go get it changed to "pagan" instead if it means being able to fight with everyone with impunity.

Then I assume that you'll be changing your avatar Pic to Wonder Woman just as soon as that is actually the case.

 

[zippy2006]

What is more honest, an assurance based on unverifiable, unfalsifiable or otherwise fallacious suppositions, or a search for truth and remaining in doubt until a verifiable, falsifiable and/or otherwise scientifically sound answer is obtained?

What is more honest, false assurance or true doubt?

If a proposition does not garner sufficient evidence then assurance of its truth is rationally untenable and some level of doubt is proper.

Yet to reason well is not easy, and the conflation of truth with fact or the search for truth with the scientific endeavor is rationally irresponsible. Honest? Perhaps. Honesty is easy to come by. Truth, less so.

 

[zippy2006]

What is more honest, an assurance based on unverifiable, unfalsifiable or otherwise fallacious suppositions, or a search for truth and remaining in doubt until a verifiable, falsifiable and/or otherwise scientifically sound answer is obtained?

There is an interesting part in Newman's Loss and Gain that is related. Charles Reding is an Anglican studying at Oxford. His friend Willis has just left Oxford due to his conversion to Catholicism. Morley is an older Catholic:

Here Willis cried out, "Oh, my dear Reding, what I say is, 'Come and see'. Don't stand at the door arguing; but enter the great home of the soul, enter and adore."

"But," said Reding, "surely God wills us to be guided by reason; I don't mean that reason is everything, but it is at least something. Surely we ought not to act without it, against it."

"But is not doubt a dreadful state?" said Willis—"a most perilous state? No state is safe but that of faith. Can it be safe to be without faith? Now, have you faith in your Church? I know you well enough to know you have not; where, then, are you?"

"Willis, you have misunderstood me most extraordinarily," said Charles: "ten thousand thoughts pass through the mind, and if it is safe to note down and bring against a man his stray words I suppose there's nothing he mayn't be accused of holding. You must be alluding to some half-sentence or other of mine, which I have forgotten, and which was no real sample of my sentiments. Do you mean I have no worship? and does not worship presuppose faith? I have much to learn, I am conscious; but I wish to learn it from the Church under whose shadow my lot is cast, and with whom I am content."

"He confesses," said Willis, "that he has no faith; he confesses that he is in doubt. My dear Reding, can you sincerely plead that you are in invincible ignorance after what has passed between us? Now, suppose for an instant that Catholicism is true, is it not certain that you now have an opportunity of embracing it? and if you do not, are you in a state to die in?"

Reding was perplexed how to answer; that is, he could not with the necessary quickness analyse and put into words the answer which his reason suggested to Willis's rapid interrogatories. Mr. Morley had kept silence, lest Charles should have two upon him at once; but when Willis paused, and Charles did not reply, he interposed. He said that all the calls in Scripture were obeyed with promptitude by those who were called; and that our Lord would not suffer one man even to go and bury his father. Reding answered, that in those cases the voice of Christ was actually heard; He was on earth, in bodily presence; now, however, the very question was, which was the voice of Christ; and whether the Church of Rome did or did not speak with the voice of Christ;—that surely we ought to act prudently; that Christ could not wish us to act otherwise; that, for himself, he had no doubt that he was in the place where Providence wished him to be; but, even if he had any doubts whether Christ was calling him elsewhere (which he had not), but if he had, he should certainly think that Christ called him in the way and method of careful examination—that prudence was the divinely appointed means of coming at the truth.

-Loss and Gain, Ch. 13​

 

[BigV]

...that prudence was the divinely appointed means of coming at the truth.

Where does the Bible say that? Bible values faith.

Blessed are those who have not seen, but believe.

Whoever doesn't accept the kingdom of God like a child will by no means enter it.

 

[zippy2006]

Where does the Bible say that?

“I, wisdom, dwell with prudence, and I find knowledge and discretion." (Proverbs 8:12)

"In everything the prudent acts with knowledge, but a fool flaunts his folly." (Proverbs 13:16)

Bible values faith.

Let's be honest. You've never read the Bible.