Sodom would be better off than Capernaum on judgment day

[tonychanyt]

Genesis 13:

13 Now the people of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD.

Jude 1:

7b Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Jude used the example of Sodom and Gomorrah to illustrate eternal fire punishment.

But then, Luke 10:

1 After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go.

8 “When you enter a town and are welcomed, eat what is offered to you. 9 Heal the sick who are there and tell them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’

The healing was a sign or demonstrative miracle.

10 But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, 11 ‘Even the dust of your town we wipe from our feet as a warning to you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God has come near.’ 12 I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town.

Jesus asserted (by "I tell you") that on the day of final judgment, the wicked people of Sodom would have more hope than the people of the town that rejected Jesus' message of the kingdom of God.

13 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 14 But it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you.

On the day of the final judgment, there is some hope for the people of Tyre and Sidon.

The LORD summarily judged the cities of Sodom, Gomorrha, Tyre, and Sidon without giving them the benefits of healing miracles and the good news. In the final judgment, Jesus would take this into consideration: some of the people from these cities will be saved. On the other hand, people from Capernaum would not have this excuse:

15 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades.

They saw Jesus' miracles and yet refused to believe. They had no excuse. The judgment on you depends on how much you have known and seen.

16 Whoever listens to you listens to Me; whoever rejects you rejects Me; and whoever rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.”

That's the solemn warning: Do not reject Jesus' good news.

=======================================================================

Appendix: FOL analysis of Jesus' hypothetical statement

Contemporary English Version, Mt 11:

23b If the miracles that took place in your town had happened in Sodom, it would still be standing.

Consider the compound proposition: If P, then Q where P and Q are simple propositions and if is a first-order logical operator.

Let R = If the miracles that took place in your town had happened in Sodom, it would still be standing.

P = The miracles that took place in your town had happened in Sodom.
Q = It would still be standing.

Case 1: A usual human spoke statement R

R is a hypothetical statement. We know that historically, P did not happen. It was not true in reality. If P is false, then the truth value of Q does not matter, and R is always true, according to the FOL truth table of the if operator. If P is an impossible hypothetical scenario (i.e., P is false), then Q can be anything. And R is fine. E.g., if the moon is made of cheese, then Trump is God. The last material conditional is a vacuously true FOL statement.

Case 2: Jesus spoke R

He was saying this: Assume that P is true. If P is true, then Q will be true as well. Jesus asserted R to be true. In modal logic, this counterfactual is not vacuous.

You can choose not to believe in Jesus' assertion. That's up to you. Here, I have explained his assertion R in terms of FOL's if.

Was it possible for the LORD to have performed demonstrative miracles in Sodom before he destroyed it?

Yes, all things are possible with God (Mt 19:26). But he chose not to do the miracles.

Why not?

So that Jesus could then use it as an example to illustrate eternal fire punishment and the notion that judgment on you depends on how much you have known and seen.

Does Mt 11:23b imply that God could have done demonstrative miracles in Sodom?

Yes, proof by contradiction:

Let assumption N1 = God could not have done demonstrative miracles in Sodom.

It was impossible for God to perform positive miraculous signs in Sodom. Now, P has a truth value of F (false). Q can take on any proposition, and R will still be true. This line of reasoning does not prove anything. Trump is not God.

However, Jesus asserted that Sodom would be better off than Bethsaida on the judgment day, using Mt 11:23b to prove it. This is the contradiction that I am looking for.

Therefore N1 is false. The truth is that God could have done demonstrative miracles in Sodom.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Genesis 13:


Jude 1:


Jude used the example of Sodom and Gomorrah to illustrate eternal fire punishment.

But then, Luke 10:



Jesus asserted that on the day of final judgment, the wicked people of Sodom would have some hope.


On the day of the final judgment, there is some hope for the people of Tyre and Sidon.

The LORD summarily judged the cities of Sodom, Gomorrha, Tyre, and Sidon without giving them the benefits of healing miracles and the good news. In the final judgment, Jesus would take this into consideration: some of the people from these cities will be saved. On the other hand, people from Capernaum would not have this excuse:


They saw Jesus' miracles and yet refused to believe. They had no excuse. The judgment on you depends on how much you have known and seen.


That's the solemn warning: Do not reject Jesus' good news.

=======================================================================

Appendix: FOL analysis of Jesus' hypothetical statement

Contemporary English Version, Mt 11:


Consider the compound proposition: If P, then Q where P and Q are simple propositions and if is a first-order logical operator.

Let R = If the miracles that took place in your town had happened in Sodom, it would still be standing.

P = The miracles that took place in your town had happened in Sodom.
Q = It would still be standing.

Case 1: A usual human spoke statement R

R is a hypothetical statement. We know that historically, P did not happen. It was not true in reality. If P is false, then the truth value of Q does not matter, and R is always true, according to the FOL truth table of the if operator. If P is an impossible hypothetical scenario (i.e., P is false), then Q can be anything. And R is fine. E.g., if the moon is made of cheese, then Trump is God.

Case 2: Jesus spoke R

He was saying this: Assume that P is true. If P is true, then Q will be true as well. Jesus asserted R to be true.

You can choose not to believe in Jesus' assertion. That's up to you. Here, I have explained his assertion R in terms of FOL's if.

Was it possible for the LORD to have performed demonstrative miracles in Sodom before he destroyed it?

Yes, all things are possible with God (Mt 19:26). But he chose not to do the miracles.

Why not?

So that Jesus could then use it as an example to illustrate eternal fire punishment and the notion that judgment on you depends on how much you have known and seen.

Once again, and as before, the question is not whether Jesus could have done miracles in Sodom. The question is whether Mt 10:15 in and of itself logically implies that he could have done miracles in Sodom. It does not. It neither denies nor implies that he could have.

 

[tonychanyt]

The question is whether Mt 10:15 in and of itself logically implies that he could have done miracles in Sodom.

Actually, the OP specifies Mt 11:23.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Actually, the OP specifies Mt 11:23.

My bad. I was wondering... Something seemed off. Anyhow, you get my point? Am I right?

 

[tonychanyt]

My bad. I was wondering... Something seemed off. Anyhow, you get my point? Am I right?

I appended the OP. Take another look. Quote my words and contradict them.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Does Mt 11:23b imply that God could have done demonstrative miracles in Sodom?

Lol, I hope you don't think that I think God had no ability to do miracles in Sodom. Matt 11:23b "...if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day."

My point is merely that the "If-then" statement that Jesus made implies nothing about whether the miracles could or could not have been done in Sodom. By your constructions concerning FOL, etc. I still see no way that there is an implication that the miracles could or could not have been done in Sodom. Only by further context, can it be known, or by intuition or other cause. NOT by that verse alone.

But, let me try this:

Genesis 13:


Jude 1:


Jude used the example of Sodom and Gomorrah to illustrate eternal fire punishment.

But then, Luke 10:



The healing was a sign or demonstrative miracle.


Jesus asserted (by "I tell you") that on the day of final judgment, the wicked people of Sodom would have more hope than the people of the town that rejected Jesus' message of the kingdom of God.


On the day of the final judgment, there is some hope for the people of Tyre and Sidon.

The LORD summarily judged the cities of Sodom, Gomorrha, Tyre, and Sidon without giving them the benefits of healing miracles and the good news. In the final judgment, Jesus would take this into consideration: some of the people from these cities will be saved. On the other hand, people from Capernaum would not have this excuse:

Mt 11, and Luke 10, as I remember, don't actually present any hope for Sodom, Tyre and Sidon. Those references only show less degree of condemnation.

They saw Jesus' miracles and yet refused to believe. They had no excuse. The judgment on you depends on how much you have known and seen.


That's the solemn warning: Do not reject Jesus' good news.

=======================================================================

Appendix: FOL analysis of Jesus' hypothetical statement

Contemporary English Version, Mt 11:


Consider the compound proposition: If P, then Q where P and Q are simple propositions and if is a first-order logical operator.

Let R = If the miracles that took place in your town had happened in Sodom, it would still be standing.

P = The miracles that took place in your town had happened in Sodom.
Q = It would still be standing.

Case 1: A usual human spoke statement R

R is a hypothetical statement. We know that historically, P did not happen. It was not true in reality. If P is false, then the truth value of Q does not matter, and R is always true, according to the FOL truth table of the if operator. If P is an impossible hypothetical scenario (i.e., P is false), then Q can be anything. And R is fine. E.g., if the moon is made of cheese, then Trump is God. The last material conditional is a vacuously true FOL statement.

Case 2: Jesus spoke R

He was saying this: Assume that P is true. If P is true, then Q will be true as well. Jesus asserted R to be true. In modal logic, this counterfactual is not vacuous.

You can choose not to believe in Jesus' assertion. That's up to you. Here, I have explained his assertion R in terms of FOL's if.

Case 1: A usual human spoke statement R
The logical sequence is the same as in Case 2
Case 1 as Case 2: Assume P is true, for the purposes of this "if-then" statement. If P had been true, then Q would be true as well. Jesus asserted R to be true. In modal logic this counterfactual is not vacuous BECAUSE R is a reliable statement. That does not imply that P is true, but how does it assert that P could have been true? It only uses the mental mechanics of supposing it to be true for the purposes of the statement.

Let me say it differently. R is a reliable statement only because Christ spoke it —not because P had been possible. If modal logic is useful here, then it does not say P is possible, but only instructs us to consider it so for the sake of the consideration of R. The veracity of R does not assign any [actual] truth value to P. (Lol, yes, I know, Tony, you don't think truth needs the qualifier, and I agree, but I show it here to emphasize the difference between reality and supposition).

Was it possible for the LORD to have performed demonstrative miracles in Sodom before he destroyed it?

Yes, all things are possible with God (Mt 19:26). But he chose not to do the miracles.

Why not?

So that Jesus could then use it as an example to illustrate eternal fire punishment and the notion that judgment on you depends on how much you have known and seen.

Does Mt 11:23b imply that God could have done demonstrative miracles in Sodom?

Yes, proof by contradiction:

Let assumption N1 = God could not have done demonstrative miracles in Sodom.

Mt 11:23b doesn't say one way or the other whether God could have or not.

It was impossible for God to perform positive miraculous signs in Sodom. Now, P has a truth value of F (false). Q can take on any proposition, and R will still be true. This line of reasoning does not prove anything. Trump is not God.

However, Jesus asserted that Sodom would be better off than Bethsaida on the judgment day, using Mt 11:23b to prove it. This is the contradiction that I am looking for.

Well, Bethsaida would be worse off, at least...

Therefore N1 is false. The truth is that God could have done demonstrative miracles in Sodom.

N1 is, by OUR study of the power of God, or by intuition, or by other reasons, considered by us to be false. But Mt 11:23b does not of itself prove it is false.

 

[tonychanyt]

the "If-then" statement that Jesus made implies nothing about whether the miracles could or could not have been done in Sodom.

Let proposition P1 = The conditional statement of Mt 11:23b implies that God could have done demonstrative miracles in Sodom.

True?

 

[Alfred-Persson]

Genesis 13:


Jude 1:


Jude used the example of Sodom and Gomorrah to illustrate eternal fire punishment.

But then, Luke 10:



The healing was a sign or demonstrative miracle.


Jesus asserted (by "I tell you") that on the day of final judgment, the wicked people of Sodom would have more hope than the people of the town that rejected Jesus' message of the kingdom of God.


On the day of the final judgment, there is some hope for the people of Tyre and Sidon.

The LORD summarily judged the cities of Sodom, Gomorrha, Tyre, and Sidon without giving them the benefits of healing miracles and the good news. In the final judgment, Jesus would take this into consideration: some of the people from these cities will be saved. On the other hand, people from Capernaum would not have this excuse:


They saw Jesus' miracles and yet refused to believe. They had no excuse. The judgment on you depends on how much you have known and seen.


That's the solemn warning: Do not reject Jesus' good news.

=======================================================================

Appendix: FOL analysis of Jesus' hypothetical statement

Contemporary English Version, Mt 11:


Consider the compound proposition: If P, then Q where P and Q are simple propositions and if is a first-order logical operator.

Let R = If the miracles that took place in your town had happened in Sodom, it would still be standing.

P = The miracles that took place in your town had happened in Sodom.
Q = It would still be standing.

Case 1: A usual human spoke statement R

R is a hypothetical statement. We know that historically, P did not happen. It was not true in reality. If P is false, then the truth value of Q does not matter, and R is always true, according to the FOL truth table of the if operator. If P is an impossible hypothetical scenario (i.e., P is false), then Q can be anything. And R is fine. E.g., if the moon is made of cheese, then Trump is God. The last material conditional is a vacuously true FOL statement.

Case 2: Jesus spoke R

He was saying this: Assume that P is true. If P is true, then Q will be true as well. Jesus asserted R to be true. In modal logic, this counterfactual is not vacuous.

You can choose not to believe in Jesus' assertion. That's up to you. Here, I have explained his assertion R in terms of FOL's if.

Was it possible for the LORD to have performed demonstrative miracles in Sodom before he destroyed it?

Yes, all things are possible with God (Mt 19:26). But he chose not to do the miracles.

Why not?

So that Jesus could then use it as an example to illustrate eternal fire punishment and the notion that judgment on you depends on how much you have known and seen.

Does Mt 11:23b imply that God could have done demonstrative miracles in Sodom?

Yes, proof by contradiction:

Let assumption N1 = God could not have done demonstrative miracles in Sodom.

It was impossible for God to perform positive miraculous signs in Sodom. Now, P has a truth value of F (false). Q can take on any proposition, and R will still be true. This line of reasoning does not prove anything. Trump is not God.

However, Jesus asserted that Sodom would be better off than Bethsaida on the judgment day, using Mt 11:23b to prove it. This is the contradiction that I am looking for.

Therefore N1 is false. The truth is that God could have done demonstrative miracles in Sodom.

I agree, ignorance of God can excuse the Sodomites. At least some of them. Eternal punishment wouldn't be "tolerable"; limited punishment with forgiveness would be.

PS: Jude is referring to the "eternal destruction" of Sodom, not eternal punishment of its inhabitants. It literally burned so badly, it was never rebuilt.