MM, If what you assert were true, it would mean my argument is invalid, either because the premises are not true, or the conclusion does not follow from the assertion. Which is it?

Invalid.

Here's the question:

quote:

---

MM, If what you assert were true, it would mean my argument is invalid, either because the premises are not true, or the conclusion does not follow from the assertion. Which is it?

---

Do you see why "invalid" does not answer the question?

Would you care to answer the question? I've been trying to ask it for over a week now! That's right, nine days! This is the tenth time I'm asking it. But I'll keep trying until either you answer it, or refuse.

Patiently waiting,

Tom

This is still not an answer. Here's the question:

The two statements I have been using as premises are:

a)Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.
b)All that we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son (on earth).

The conclusion is:

c)Jesus Christ did not in principle any differently during His life on earth than during any other time of His existence, whether past, present or future.

If this argument is not valid, it is either because the premises are false, or the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Here are a couple of acceptable answers:

i)The argument is invalid, because the premises are false.
ii)The argument is invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Since you have already asserted the argument is invalid, it must be so for one of these two reasons. If you say it is ii), it would be nice if you provided some justification for why you think this is the case. If you answer i), there is no need for further clarification.

-----------------------------------------------

Here's the problem in more detail. Inspiration tells us that ALL we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ in his humanity. Yet you, MM, contrary to inspiration, are suggesting that no, not everything we can know about God was revealed in Christ's life while on earth because while here on earth He didn't do anything remotely like the flood.

So you are asserting something contrary to inspiration. Why?

It seems clear to me your assertion cannot be true, because it contradicts the clear statement that ALL we can know about God was revealed by Jesus Christ during His life here on earth.

Another possibility is that you are in error regarding your assertion, and Jesus Christ did act, in principle, in ways during His life on earth which was in complete harmony with how He acted during the flood.

So we have two possibilities:
a)Jesus acted in principle the same during the flood as during His life on earth, in which case the above stated principles may be true:

or

b)Jesus acted in principle different during the flood than while on earth, in which case you, MM, would be correct, but the inspired principles would be wrong.

It seems to me more likely that your idea is in error, MM, than that the principles of inspiration are in error.

Another possibility is that your idea is in harmony with the principles of inspiration, and I would expect that you believe this is the case. I would be open for you to explain how these things, which appear to be out of harmony, really aren't.

Tom, I agree with you that the principles you've outline should help us understand how and why Jesus used a Flood to kill millions of people.

MM, what's the point in posting something that starts, "I agree ..." when you know the person to whom you are posting doesn't agree with your statement. Are you purposely trying to annoy me? To what end? I notice you post this way in response to others besides me, so I know it's not something personal against me. I'm sure it's as annoying to the others as it is to me.

If it is not your purpose to annoy, but to engage in an honest discussion, please answer my question. It's a simple one.

The two statements I have been using as premises are:

a)Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.
b)All that we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son (on earth).

The conclusion is:

c)Jesus Christ did not in principle any differently during His life on earth than during any other time of His existence, whether past, present or future.

If this argument is not valid, it is either because the premises are false, or the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Here are a couple of acceptable answers:

i)The argument is invalid, because the premises are false.
ii)The argument is invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Thank you.

Apparently you agree with my premises, by your "I agree" comment. That is:

quote:

---

The two statements I have been using as premises are:

a)Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.
b)All that we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son (on earth).

I agree.

---

I assume this "I agree" means that you agree with the premises. My conclusion from these premises are that it follows, given a) and b), that Jesus Christ could not have done anything fundamentally different in principle than what He did during His life on earth. Do you agree that this conclusion follows from these premises?

Here's an analagous situation. Let's say I say of you, "All that can be known of MM was revealed during his years in grade school". Would it not follow from this statement that you cannot be doing something fundamentally different in principle than what you did in grade school? If one could postulate that you are doing something differently now than in grade school, then the above proposition would be false.

Going back to premises a) and b), you are attempting to introduce a counter-example, that God (or Christ) acted fundamentally differently during the flood than how Christ acted during His life on earth. If this counter-example were true, then it would disprove the premises which you said you agreed with.

Do you understand what I'm saying? If not, I'll give up. If you do, please explain how your counter-example doesn't disprove the premises that you said you agree with.

Regarding your posting, I wasn't concerned with your feelings when you posted, just the content of your post. I notice you often post "I agree" when it's obvious that your position is not in agreement with the position that you are "agreeing" with.

Okay, Tom, now that we are on the same page I'm ready to listen to your view of the Flood. What did Jesus do that was fundamentally and principally the same as the Flood when He walked this planet as a human being.

Regarding your grade school analogy: if a person did something different than the way they did it in grade school then it would be explained as an anomaly - a strange act.

PS - You are second guessing my motives when you post things like you do. Since you cannot possibly know my motives, please refrain from making such comments. Thank you.