Jesus and the Law of Non-Contradiction

As I mentioned earlier, Joe Carter has begun a project called "Jesus the Logician," and he is soliciting blog entries on the subject.  I thought I would submit my first entry on the subject of Jesus and the law of non-contradiction. 

The only problem is that Joe is asking that we tie our posts to a particular text of Scripture and this one won't be - this is more along the lines of prolegomena on the subject.  But, I'll send Joe a trackback on it and see if he wants to post it - if so great, if not I'll come up with something else.

One of the ongoing debates in these matters is on whether or not God obeys the law of non-contradiction.  Those of us who follow Van Til are famous for saying that God transcends the law of non-contradiction.   But we are in error if, by that, we mean that God is free to ignore the law of non-contradiction.  I think the main point that Van Til's followers want to get at is that it is improper to say that God is submissive to the law of non-contradiction, because God is submissive to nothing.  Rather, a better way of stating it is to say that the law of non-contradiction is grounded in the non-contradictory character of God.  Thus, the law of non-contradiction is not some principle or ideal out there which God submits to, rather it is something that flows from the character of God. 

A corollary to this is that, though the law of non-contradiction is true because it is an expression of God's non-contradictory character, as finite human beings we are unable to fully discern what is contradictory and what is not.  God cannot violate His own character, therefore He cannot contradict Himself, but we don't always see that. There are things that appear contradictory to us because of our fallenness and that our minds will never grasp.  But we can err when we bend the Word of God to fit our understanding of the law of non-contradiction.  There are times when we have to let the mystery stand and accept the fact that we can't explain it.

Richard Pratt has an article called "Common Misunderstandings of Van Til's Apologetic" that deals with this matter better than I have, and I'll close with his thoughts on the matter.  I offer this not so much to defend Van Til as to give insight into how to properly apply the law of non-contradiction

 

Van Til never denied the importance of logic. He affirmed that logic has its basis in the consistency and verity of God, and that logical thinking is an aspect of our nature as images of God. Our rational capacity is one of the ways in which we are like God. God wants us to think his thoughts after Him, and this includes the proper use of logic. Nevertheless, Van Til qualified these affirmations with the observation that logic — as well as we know and use it — is subject to creaturely limitations and sinful abuses.

 

Van Til utterly rejected the idea that God could contradict himself. Neither God nor his revelation can be contradictory. Otherwise, God would be a liar and that is not possible (Num. 23:19). Nevertheless, Van Til was quick to stress that many things about God remain beyond the grasp of human reason. The Bible contains mysteries that our minds cannot fathom (Deut. 29:29; Rom. 11:33-36).

 

For example, we cannot fully understand the intricacies of doctrines like the Trinity, the Incarnation, divine sovereignty and human responsibility, to name just a few. We can explore and understand these doctrines to some extent, but not enough to eliminate the appearance of significant logical difficulties. These Biblical teachings may have the appearance of contradiction, but only the appearance. We may not be able to explain adequately everything about these mysteries, but we rest in the knowledge that they are resolved in the mind of the God who knows all and is perfectly rational.

 

In this way, Van Til called for Christians to place practical limitations on the use of our sinful and finite understanding of the law of non-contradiction. We know that in principle no truth contradicts, but in practice we cannot always demonstrate how this is so. For this reason, we should not use the law of non-contradiction as the ultimate arbiter of truth. We are unable to penetrate exhaustively into the many mysteries that the Bible teaches. Therefore, Christians should observe the law of non-contradiction, but always to clarify — never to discount — the teachings of Scripture. When the Scriptures seem to contradict themselves or experience, we work hard to improve our understanding through logical reflection, but many times we reach the limits of our rational abilities. At these points, we put our trust in God as the One in whom there is no falsehood or contradiction.

 

The practical implications of these outlooks are essential to the Christian life because they raise questions about the authority and reliability of the Bible. The Bible contains no contradictions within itself, nor does it contradict the facts of general revelation. But because our use of logic is finite and corrupted by sin, the teachings of Scripture often challenge our rational capacities. “It is not rational to believe such things,” unbelievers contend. As Christians, we have to admit both the appearance of logical difficulties and our inability to solve all of these problems. Yet, we affirm in no uncertain terms, that the problem is in the sinful use of human reason, not in Scripture.

 

For this reason, we must give practical priority to the Bible over our rational abilities, including our best attempts to follow the law of non-contradiction. It is dangerous to tell people that they should be rational without also warning them to be humble before the pure and infinite rationality of God revealed in Scripture. We must not place a corrupted finite standard above or on par with the absolute standard of God’s Word. When our thoughts conflict with the Bible, we should bow in humility before God, believing him despite the appearance of logical difficulties.

Comments

[bilbo bagins]

I get a kick out of this!
What did Francis Schaefer say about
"true truth" ? (As opposed to my truth or what appears true?)
For instance, was it not said that
the sun went around the earth because
thats what we saw from down here?
Then someone (Galileo?) showed with a telescope and fancy mathematical formulae that the earth went around the sun.
These two facts contratict one another and we are forced to make a
choice (paradigm shift).

I will thus make a proposal:
Since God is the author and creator
of this universe, then what God chooses to disclose in the Bible will not suffer from paradigm shift
(its good to the end :-) )

[Anthony]

I am reading Bahsen's book on the apolgetic method of Cornelius Van Til and posted some similar thoughts on my blog. (shameless self-promo). It's amazing that he catches such a bad rap amongst many reformed Christians for dare suggesting that our logic and reasoning is far different than that of God.(being finite and subject to the fallen state of this world)
http://anthurti.blogthing.com/2005/01/14/thinking-about-authority/

In any event, if not yet clear, I completley agree with your last paragraph. "For this reason, we must give practical priority to the Bible over our rational abilities, including our best attempts to follow the law of non-contradiction."

Well put!

[David Wayne]

Anthony - thanks for the comment, just to clarify that last comment you quoted belongs to Richard Pratt, not me - but I think you and I are tracking here.
Bilbo - thanks for the comment, but technically your example would not be a contradiction. The law of non-contradiction says that "A" can not be "A" and "non-A" at the same time and in the same sense. In this example the conventional wisdom that the sun went around the earth and the later observation that the earth went around the sun are contradictory, but those observations are taken in different senses. The one observation is from the point of view of the unaided naked eye and the other is from the point of a telescope and from some very sophisticated calculations.
Thanks for commenting!

[bilbo bagins]

I'll take another whack at this:
What was Calvary about? -- The
crucifiction of Jesus the God/man.
So he is hanging there -- Holy and sinful. INF - INF.

NOW THATS a contradiction ... but it had
to happen!

THEREFORE I vote no. GOD is not bound by this law.

[Nikolai]

Those of you guys who, after Van Til and Pratt, agree that, quote, "... we should not use the law of non-contradiction as the ultimate arbiter of truth", can you think of an example where the law of contradiction should be disregarded and the truth determined without using the law? Surely you must know of such examples for otherwise how would you know that the law of contradiction should be abandoned at one time or another?

Nikolai

[bilbo bagins]

When we start asking "IS GOD BOUND BY THIS?", we should keep a few things in mind:
1) We're finite, God is infinite
2) If it is revealed in the Bible
then God will not contradict it. (Makes him a liar).
3) Since God established the laws of Thermodynamics, chemistry, logic/mathematics -- he is certainly free to sidestep said laws to accomplish his ends. Would this not constitute a "miracle" in our terms/parlance?

I personally lean towards the ORIGINAL SIN/CALVARY senario because of the symmetry. :-)

[bilbo bagins]

Here:
I decided to GOOGLE the Law of non-contradicition -- here is what I found:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Apologetics/McMahonFirstPrinciples.htm
ALSO read I Kings 13.

Think on these things...

[David Wayne]

Bilbo - thanks for all the comments and links.

Nikolai - I am not comfortable in using the word "discarded" when it comes to the use of the law of non-contradiction. I am only saying that the law of non-contradiction can not give a full account of all reality.

The best example I can come up with is the Trinity. I know that there are those who say that the doctrine of the Trinity doesn't violate the law of non-contradiction, but I don't see that the law of non-contradiction does full justice to the trinity.

[Nikolai]

David,
Can you please explain what sort of problem there is between the law of contradiction and the doctrine of the Trinity? I suppose you are not suggesting that the doctrine of the Trinity is illogical? If you are not, then in what exactly sense does the law of contradiction fails to do full justice to the doctrine of the Trinity?
Thanks.

[Dr.MR]

David:

Good post. Your observation re the law of non-contradiction emanating from God's character (rather than being some external principle to which He is subject) was a very helpful reminder/connection for me.

I tend to be predominantly synthetic or global in my own think, thus needing the analytical attributes of fellow believers to help me think through things. This helps a lot.

The tone of the post is somewhat cautionary, if I'm reading it correctly; I posted a different caution on my own site.

Thanks for the post.

[David Wayne]

Nikolai - now that you have pushed me to the wall on this let me backgrack a little and say that I don't mean to imply that the trinity is illogical. Since logic is grounded in the nature/character of God, God defines what is logical.
I'm just not sure that the traditional laws of logic as we understand them can do justice to the full revelation of God.
I suppose the best way I can express my thoughts about the trinity and the law of non-contradiction is to quote Stephen M. Barr in a discussion on quantum theory in First Things. BTW - I'm clueless about quantum theory, but I find this illustrative of the issue, particularly the last line of this quote:

The traditional interpretation of quantum theory does not require one to abandon the laws of logic, only to modify one’s concepts. For example, to say “an electron is both a wave and a particle” would violate the law of noncontradiction only if the statement “a particle is not a wave” were an analytic proposition, which is not the case, as far as I can see. It is not that the law of noncontradiction fails, but that certain pre-quantum concepts used to describe the physical world are inadequate. At a more sublime level, the same thing happens in theology. For example, the Bible says that God is living and yet that He is unchanging. Christians say that God is a trinity, and yet that He is absolutely simple. Here, too, there is nothing illogical, just an inadequacy of ordinary terms.

So, I think you are right and I think I am wrong if I imply that the trinity is illogical - still, I agree with Barr that the law of non-contradiction is inadequate.

Thanks for the interaction.

[bilbo bagins]

I personally don't see much of a problem with the Trinity:

Take an object (A pie) and slice it into 3 equal peices. So long as you
don't go ripping it apart, it is a
Pie with 3 sub-units. They make up
part of the whole.

Charles Williams described it this way:
they exist within one another; like a
preborn baby within her mother...

[bilbo bagins]

Here is another GOOGLE:
God "Law of Non-contradiction" attribute

http://www.objectivethought.com/objectivism/objectivism.html
http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/frame_ligonier.html
http://www.homestead.com/philofreligion/files/RESSAY1.htm

[bilbo bagins]

I decided to prove this:

A is A : Identity property
A is ( must be set to
something )
to be , is to be something

Law of non-contradiction puts is formally:
nothing can be A and ~A at the same time and in the same respect.

Law of non-contradiction is the fundamental principal defining the method of reality-based thought.

to be A, or not to be A, this is the question...

For example:

Ex 3:14 I AM who I AM

I AM = I AM : Holds under Identity

am--1st person of "to be"
is--3rd person of "to be"

I (to be) who (to be) I : Identity
again

OR

I JUST AM! # Can you hear God get-
exasperated with
Moses?

In the Gospel of John see:

Jn 6:35 I AM the bread of life
Jn 8:58 ...before Abraham was I AM
Jn 10:7 I AM ... gate for the sheep
Jn 10:11I AM the good shepard
Jn 6:41 I AM ... the bread that came down from heaven
Jn 6:51 I AM the living bread
Jn 14:6 I AM the way the truth, the life
Jn 15:1 I AM true vine

In each case the hebrew for I AM is the same form used in Ex 3:14

SO if Jesus is God made flesh (the incarnation), then these "I AM" statements also describe God -- right?

And "To be" by itself is a property of God -- else he could not have created the universe!

[Jared]

Seriously,
It's as though the people here are toying with reason in a exasperating attempt to force their prehistoric confirmation bias onto a sophisticated concept. You might be taken seriously by someone outside of your group if you stopped using tautologies to make yourself feel better about the monstrous holes in the foundation of religion. It's ok to have faith... but it's annoying when you try present for having more credibility than it has. It is your personal belief, nothing more. You do not know it to be truer than anything else, in fact evidence suggests it is less so many times, yet you still believe. Period. The moral absolutism you try to impose by usurping the credibility of the scientific world and flaunting it like the indigenous peoples did with the shiny beads your ancestors used to beguile them is vomitous. You have no propietary rights to god, everyone else is entitled to their god...Iknow this is a foreign concept, but using evidence (e.g. the bible, god etc.) to support the same evidence is a fallacy. Get over it. A=a because a=a, not a lot of validity there.

[Robert S. Lockett]

Unity vs. Separation
Shedding light on the ambiguous implications of quantum potential:

Was Jesus a monist or a dualist? Some say both…

By Robert S. Lockett

Genesis 1: 3-4 And God said, "Let there be light." And there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness...

It has long been recognized that the quantum realm reveals the possibilities (duality) of light in relationship to the observer. This denotes the observer’s ability to affect reality. It is a reasonable proof that we certainly do affect reality, and in some minds it suggests that we create it. I personally do not suppose that manipulation is equal to creation. Either way, as the philosophically sound cliché says; no man is an island.

I am going to keep this as simple as I am able, so let us explore the implications by first recognizing that a photon exists both as a wave and a particle. Depending on the experiment, once it is observed, a photon can no longer be both a particle and wave and looses it's 'duality', in one sense, becoming 'real' in relationship to the observer. This either / or relationship bears a striking resemblance to the either / or relationship in the basic principles of logic (reason). In the same way, truth, once observed and therefore affirmed, becomes real in relationship to the observer. As a result, the alternative potentials are excluded.

The first point of this observation is that we cannot have it both ways either in the case of light (particle physics) or logic in the metaphysical sense. If we choose to observe reality, be it physical or metaphysical, we will inherit the consequences of that decision. The consequences of manipulating physical light do not contain any discernable tragic ramifications. On the other hand, the consequences of observing truth as a light and thereby defining ‘reality’ in the metaphysical realm, carries some enormous implications for all of mankind. In that sense, if we conform to reality as it is, we will by definition get the 'default' reality. One of my assumptions is that the original purpose or design, or that ‘default reality’ so to speak, is the reality we all are seeking. We may only differ on 'the way' to get there. In either way, every assumption of justice or morality; and every affirmation of truth necessarily implies an objective reality and therefore an absolute reality. If we make absolute statements such as, ‘all is one’, ‘there are no absolutes’, or ‘truth is relative’ (notice the affirming words ‘is’ and ‘are’) without the knowledge that we are in fact making an absolute statement, then we are on very shaky ground.

When one ponders the concept of 'truth' from an ambivalent vantage point, it seems the possibilities defy observation, for once observed and affirmed, the realm of possibilities is then reduced to mere perspective. Or is it? It is true that once truth is affirmed, the observer excludes it’s opposite, effectively closing the door on other alternatives. Let there be no deception that the decisive metaphysical observer is 'all inclusive' in his/her affirmation. However, just because every affirmation excludes its opposite, this does not mean that such a conclusion is always subjective. For example, 1+1 only equals 2. Once we use reason to establish that objective reality, we have ourselves conformed to reality and have moved beyond open mindedness, yet we remain objective.

I would like to illustrate the second point with a more striking example. If we choose to believe that we are God, we should not deceive ourselves that we have remained open-minded. Open-mindedness would not allow such a conclusion. This works as well with any affirmation that we are not God. Neither worldview can ultimately claim an unbiased vantage point. They are both fundamentalist positions. As stated in the last paragraph, this does not necessarily mean that we are being subjective. Open-mindedness and objectivity are two distinct entities even though they do overlap at times. Objectivity and open-mindedness will lead to the conclusion that 1+1=2, but once affirmed we are rightly no longer open-minded and move forward with the objective of finding more of reality. It is a logical necessity to reject the alternative answers such as 1+1=3. The practical implication is that the truth (the objective, or default reality) precedes us, and we must conform to it. At the beginning of our journey, objectivity and open-mindedness overlap. Once the objective is reached, all opposites are excluded.

Jesus claimed to be the wholeness of the objective reality. Mathew 10: 39 "He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it." John 14: 6 'I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the father except through me.'

It occurs to me that the will of the individual is given enormous latitude and power to interpret the duality of the information and make an affirmation. Another way to put it is that the observer is faced with an enormous test of his heart. It does appear that this test is of the observer’s deepest intentions. It is inevitable that ‘truth’ is defined within the heart of the observer. The observer may perceive reality in any fashion he/she chooses (2+2=9), but to be certain, creating reality would involve more than believing he/she has the power to do so by shear subjection. One must be able to explain (logically show) why they believe that what may only begin in the heart, is indeed the objective reality. If the heart and mind do not converge into a coherent fabric, then he/she must attempt to achieve the presumed end in spite of reason. I assume we all believe that the end does not justify the means.

Assuming the power to create reality ultimately involves changing the cosmological constants and laws of physics. In the very least, such power should demonstrate mastery over them by essentially manifesting God Himself. Jesus is reliably documented to have done just this when He demonstrated the miraculous and these feats ended with the grandest of all conceivable miracles, when He ultimately rose from the dead. If we are God (as some claim), then it is true that we should lay hold of our destiny even without the ability to reasonably explain our position and vigorously pursue our ends. If we are not God, then we are underestimating the consequences of our actions in the most dangerous and subjective fashion. We should have no ambivalence about making or denying such an utterly profound affirmation. Jesus made it plain when He said, "I came into this world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me" (John 18:37-38) His bold affirmation makes a black and white claim that if we are honest in our hearts, we will listen to Him and that our search is inevitably found in Him. The Bible says that in Him, all of reality consists. Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

To be more specific, when contemplating the nature of divinity, only two possibilities exist. One of these is the possibility that ‘all is one’, the classic pantheist philosophy of monism in which we and all of creation are God (Hinduism, Buddhism, New Age, etc.). The other is a very different divinity in the form of the Biblical all powerful and infinite God and His sovereignty over all his creatures and creation. One view defines man as divine, and the other acknowledges a separation from divinity as a result of man seeking divine power for himself (pride/ego). The attitude of the observer to the either / or decision in this regard, most assuredly hinges on the moral implications of the two views.

They are not compatible. Notice that the monistic worldview exists to separate itself from the ‘narrow’ Christian orthodoxy, whereas the Christian exists to unite Himself with God within the narrow framework of truth. For the 'monistic' worldview to survive, they will inevitably have to argue against a part 'of the all' (Christians) who disagree. This is self defeating and exposes a contradiction in their presupposition that 'all is one'. The Christian is consistent, acknowledging the necessity of exclusivity in the nature of an objective reality. Matthew 7:13 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.

It is a difficult concept to differentiate by any measure. It is like an optical illusion that shifts perspective as we look longer at its qualities. The temptations of Monism are intense and easy to believe; yet, the veracity and logic of Dualism demands consideration by the honest thinker because of its overwhelming conviction and the shear power of its coherence.

It is interesting that the classical concept of ‘free will’, in the Biblical sense, is confirmed by the discovery of potential in quantum physics. As a follower of Christ, my observation of this connection is given as a means of illustrating the incredible coherence of a Biblical worldview. It is my opinion that such a connection is no mere coincidence. It is simply true. Conscious free will + potential = God given dignity. Have it your way or God's way. God does not impose Himself on us. For Him to do so would be to create a perfect world containing nothing but unthinking, uncaring, yet undeniably perfect nonliving robots. In a Monistic reality, we would have no power at all and would only do what is inevitable. Ironically, it is the Monist that claims to create reality, which is the most powerful position one could have.

Truth remains undefined and unobserved until the potential observer makes a conscious decision to seek and observe it. Not seeking truth is inevitably a conscious decision as well. In this arena, remaining open-minded is really a decision to not make a decision and is therefore illogical. In regard to the two contradictory views of divinity, once defined by an act of the will, the implications of the affirmation into reality (even if only subjective) become immediate and apparent. One can choose to believe all is well and thereby attempt to keep his life by interpreting it as ‘already part of the all’, or conform to the implication of his separation from divinity by seeking the help of the divine in order to become one with Him and excluding the nonsense.

We are manipulating reality in a sense, as the quantum sciences prove, or rather, making real by way of consequences in the material, our decision to observe reality the way we choose. One should not confuse the reality that is perceived within, thereby confined to perception, with the reality that exists before and after the observer exists. Individually, we are not the only observers. Self can only define reality by the self’s DNA and experience. But by the rejection of self and a repositioning into relationship with the divine, one can experience a new birth that transcends DNA and experience (subjection). Only the latter allows the self to exist in both states; as an individual (' I '), in relationship with the divine who is also a distinct being. Though some suggest that to call ones self ' I ' is an egoist response to the dilemma, it is interesting to note, that this negative view is held as a way of avoiding conformity for the sake of the divine, and maintains the ego. It is the acknowledgement of the ' I ' that reveals the individuals responsibility to the whole and recognizes the power to alter reality. This sheds light on the need for individual rehabilitation if one is out of sorts with the objective (reality).

Stating fact or arguing with reason is not, by any means, necessarily egoic or fear based in nature. However, the denial of fact, or the inability to accept a reasonable and logical argument is always motivated by ego and fear. Some claims demand serious attention because the implications are so inescapably enormous.

That being said, the most offensive thing anyone could say to the fear and ego driven heart is, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except by me."

That is the ultimate, staggering, and exclusive claim to sovereignty. It is also a completely reasonable statement. Even so, such a statement is either motivated by the purest form of ego, and/or, it intends to manipulate by the most blatant use of fear, or such a statement is the most selfless expression and profound truth that any man will ever hear. It is a claim that only God can make consistently.

I believe that is why C.S. Lewis wrote the following:

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

The monistic worldview is nothing more than an attempt to escape from individual responsibility. The only way to maintain such a position consistently, albeit an obstinate and rebellious posture, is to declare 'one’s self' as God. For most monists, it is far less confrontational to speak without such clarity. They like to avoid the necessity and inevitability of the conflict. The monist prefers to say that we are evolving into the divine. But by implication this is by default, which is equivalent to being divine. As in the disagreement over Jesus Christ’s claims, this claim either the greatest blasphemy, or the greatest truth. The stakes are enormous.

Since much of the quantum’s incredible insight involves light and the difficulty of putting a finger on it’s true nature, it is exceptionally noteworthy, that Jesus said, 'I am the light of the world' (John 9; 5) ‘I have come into the world as a light’ (John 12; 46). ‘This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God (John 3; 19).

Monism can explain our unity but not our diversity. Evolution can explain our diversity but not our unity. We seek unity in diversity (University, Quintessence, E Pluribus Unum), and the only way to have unity in diversity in the effect (creation) is to have unity in diversity in the first cause (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Only Christianity offers that. The Creator, the triune God, is a being that is also an eternal relationship. He is one though making up three distinct forms of Himself. With God’s plan, we are allowed to become sons of God, by denying ourselves as God, and accepting the wisdom of the only God. It is there that we awake and begin to understand the hymnist when he wrote, “I once was lost, but now I’m found, was blind, but now I see”.

According to Christ, there is unity in Him and Him alone. All is not unity, only that which is in Christ. Christ forces us to either accept Him, or reject Him. If we accept, then that begins with careful consideration of his words and their implications. He did not ask us to jump in blindly. Rather He warns us to weigh the issue with intensity. Luke 14: 27-33 And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple. "Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him, saying, 'This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.' "Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Will he not first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple. "Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is fit neither for the soil nor for the manure pile; it is thrown out. "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."

If we reject Him, the only alternative is for man to claim himself and all of his conflicting and chaotic ambitions to be his and his life alone. Christ is either God, or we are. Matthew 12; 30 " He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me, scatters abroad." A monist cannot say this either because there is no against, there are only different sides of the same one, and therefore Jesus was not a monist.

Look at the following verse and see how Jesus describes the Spirit that created all things coming to make His home in the heart of a mortal, thereby making known to him the immortal and eternal God. This is the 'real', personal, and daily relationship with divinity (Christ). John 14; 23 "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My words; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him."

He often expands on the depth of the spiritual rebirth. John 14;17-20 " The Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you." "I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. A little while longer and the world will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. At that day you will know that I Am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you."

The monist proclaims that we cannot 'know' that these things are true lest we risk being controlled by the ego (because all is individually subjective); but, if you did not notice in these verses before, see that Jesus proclaims that ‘you will know, or see’. "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8; 32) It is just the same way as mentioned in the beginning of this article, that we may close our minds to alternatives while remaining objective, since what we have found is the objective reality.

The monist is forced to accept all that is, as part of the evolving divine oneness. This allows them to see themselves as divine yet in a state not yet fully realized. Genesis 3; 5 Then Satan said, "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God…"

Only God can be God by logical necessity, even if we disagree as to who He is. That is one reason I put my life and faith in Jesus Christ, for He spoke plainly and in truth. Even the monist knows and is forced to say that God is one, they just misunderstand the implications of their philosophy. Many of them do so intentionally.

Mark 12: 28-34 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these." "Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices." When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.

Christ spoke no doubletalk about being all inclusive. We cannot have it both ways. 1+1 cannot = both 2 and 3 and 5 and 8 and etc. To attempt it is to eat the fruit of ‘the tree of knowledge of good and evil’. Jesus said, ‘Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division’ (Luke 12:51). A monist cannot say this for their concept of deity only works to unite. The truth always divides, which is why Monism cannot be true.

John 9:16 Some of the Pharisees said, "This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath." But others asked, "How can a sinner do such miraculous signs?" So they were divided.

Acts 23:7 When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided.

Psalm 78:13 He divided the sea and led them through; he made the water stand firm like a wall.

Matthew 25: 31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.

John 8:43-45 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!

In conclusion, I wish to point out that in the Biblical sense, Jesus was most assuredly not a monist. Now, many claim and make an interesting point now and then that Jesus’ words were manipulated and mistranslated. I disagree, and believe that He did in fact say all of these outrageous and incredible things. That is why He was crucified and tortured more than any man who ever lived. You can believe all you want that He was a monist. You can even believe that he was a form of both. I am not the type who will tell you what you should believe. I think the evidence speaks for itself. I suppose I can agree with anyone that Jesus was a dualist, but more importantly, He is God. That is either true, or it isn’t. But we can’t have it both ways because in the very beginning God said, "Let there be light." And there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness (Genesis 1: 3-4)

[email protected]

[Maggie]

[61.7] And who is more unjust than he who forges a lie against Allah and he is invited to Islam, and Allah does not guide the unjust people.

Jolly, of course Allah does not contradict himself and therefore, if you are on the wrong side of Allah's argument, you are in very, very deep doo doo. Isa (Jesus in your language and May Allah be pleased with all of his prophets) was not crucified nor is he similar, equal or sitting as Judge alongside Allah. That is a bonafide lie which, you as Christians follow as part of a sectarian ideology. Christianity is nothing but a sect of Islamic Monotheism Jolly.

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1214973442150410.xml&coll=1

Non muslims have been fed a continuous stream of lies ever since the CruciFICTION Jollyblogger. In the above case, parents are allowing young children with no practical memory of the lie known as September 11th to be spoon fed a "version" of the truth.

In the case of Aristotlean dynamics it is known as the Law of Non Contradictions which, if applied correctly, can lead to false ramifications for many, many things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

The problem with Christians and Christianity is simply put: You/They stopped listening before Allah was done talking. When Allah was done talking to mankind (via sacred texts and prophets) HE SAID SO. Mohamed is the Last Prophet and the SEAL of all the messengers. Allah didn't cover this statement either....Allah made it plain in a CLEAR book called the Glorious Quran. Perhaps you folks ought to read what Allah said and wake up from this dizzying stupor you've been in. Have you been in it by choice or ignorance? I have to wonder really. I have to wonder.

[3.45] When the angels said: O Marium, surely Allah gives you good news with a Word from Him (of one) whose name is the '. Messiah, Isa son of Marium, worthy of regard in this world and the hereafter and of those who are made near (to Allah).
[3.52] But when Isa perceived unbelief on their part, he said Who will be my helpers in Allah's way? The disciples said: We are helpers (in the way) of Allah: We believe in Allah and bear witness that we are submitting ones.
[3.55] And when Allah said: O Isa, I am going to terminate the period of your stay (on earth) and cause you to ascend unto Me and purify you of those who disbelieve and make those who follow you above those who disbelieve to the day of resurrection; then to Me shall be your return, so l will decide between you concerning that in which you differed.
[3.59] Surely the likeness of Isa is with Allah as the likeness of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, Be, and he was.
[3.84] Say: We believe in Allah and what has been revealed to us, and what was revealed to Ibrahim and Ismail and Ishaq and Yaqoub and the tribes, and what was given to Musa and Isa and to the prophets from their Lord; we do not make any distinction between any of them, and to Him do we submit.

[4.157] And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.
[4.159] And there is not one of the followers of the Book but most certainly believes in this before his death, and on the day of resurrection he (Isa) shall be a witness against them.
[4.163] Surely We have revealed to you as We revealed to Nuh, and the prophets after him, and We revealed to Ibrahim and Ismail and Ishaq and Yaqoub and the tribes, and Isa and Ayub and Yunus and Haroun and Sulaiman and We gave to Dawood
[4.171] O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only an apostle of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His apostles, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector.

[5.46] And We sent after them in their footsteps Isa, son of Marium, verifying what was before him of the Taurat and We gave him the Injeel in which was guidance and light, and verifying what was before it of Taurat and a guidance and an admonition for those who guard (against evil).
[5.78] Those who disbelieved from among the children of Israel were cursed by the tongue of Dawood and Isa, son of Marium; this was because they disobeyed and used to exceed the limit.
[5.110] When Allah will say: O Isa son of Marium! Remember My favor on you and on your mother, when I strengthened you I with the holy Spirit, you spoke to the people in the cradle and I when of old age, and when I taught you the Book and the wisdom and the Taurat and the Injeel; and when you determined out of clay a thing like the form of a bird by My permission, then you breathed into it and it became a bird by My permission, and you healed the blind and the leprous by My permission; and when you brought forth the dead by My permission; and when I withheld the children of Israel from you when you came to them with clear arguments, but those who disbelieved among them said: This is nothing but clear enchantment.
[5.112] When the disciples said: O Isa son of Marium! will your Lord consent to send down to us food from heaven? He said: Be careful of (your duty to) Allah if you are believers.
[5.114] Isa the son of Marium said: O Allah, our Lord! send i down to us food from heaven which should be to us an ever-recurring happiness, to the first of us and to the last of us, and a sign from Thee, and grant us means of subsistence, and Thou art the best of the Providers.
[5.116] And when Allah will say: O Isa son of Marium! did you say to men, Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah he will say: Glory be to Thee, it did not befit me that I should say what I had no right to (say); if I had said it, Thou wouldst indeed have known it; Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I do not know what is in Thy mind, surely Thou art the great Knower of the unseen things.

Peace and nice blog all the same.