avi

In response, I offered the following:
I think it is my explanation that requires straightening, not your assessment.
Allow me please, rhutchin, to attempt a less muddleheaded explanation of the two problems, as I observe them.

Both problems, in my opinion, address the question of authenticity of remarks attributed to Jesus:

Problem 1: "the" bible. There is no single version of the bible acceptable to everyone, and the version I am working with, Hort and Westcott, is discordant with the version you employ, Byzantine edition. I think we agree, however, that:
a. there is a difference between the two versions,
and
b. the difference for this singular passage, John 14:28, involves only a single greek word, "mou", which is found in the Byzantine version, but is present in neither Codex Vaticanus, nor Sinaiticus, the two oldest extant versions (of which I am aware,) for the Gospel of John.

Now where we seem to disagree is on the significance, if any, of this insertion of "mou". I think we would also agree, perhaps, that this problem, of an extra word in one edition, but not another, would be most easily attributed to simple scribal error, were it not for the fact that this verse attests to a speech by Jesus, himself. My claim is that the insertion of this word, "mou" represents not a simple scribal error (which it obviously could be), but rather, an attempt by someone, post Constantine, to address a political problem within the ranks of "true believers"....

The big picture here is whether there was a change in the perception of Jesus, pre and post Constantine. I don't have the answer, to that question, but I claim that the Byzantine version, with the additional "mou" represents a forgery, committed by those in power, who wished to emphasize the distinction between Jesus as mere prophet and Jesus the acknowledged deity, "son of Yahweh", possessing all of God's powers, knowledge, and abilities.

We know that two centuries after Constantine, the Eastern component of the Empire swung over to Islam, which posits the former status for Jesus--i.e. a mere prophet, not a deity. Evidently the region East of Lake Galilee was fertile ground for the human, rather than the divine, Jesus. Would such a belief, in Jesus as prophet, have succeeded, two centuries after Constantine, were it not for political power supporting such a view? My explanation is that the Byzantine edition, inserted "mou" to protect its claim that Jesus was divine, and not simply a prophet.

Problem 2:
John 10:30.

Here all the versions have the same text:

egw kai o pathr en esmen

I and the father are one.

Algebraically: X = Y.

Contrast this with the aforementioned John 14: 28

oti o pathr meizwn mou estin

For the father is greater than I.

Algebraically: X < Y.

Thus, arises this second problem: How can a deity, supposedly omniscient, profess a degree of mentation inferior to that of some other deity?

So, two problems attempting to investigate the degree of uncertainty regarding speech attributed to Jesus.

avi

avi

Should we then marvel at the honeybee's hexagonal brood chamber, constructed entirely of wax? Is it so fantastic that we must invoke a supernatural deity to explain how the honeybee came to possess such a skill?

When you write that "The individual cells that make up the human body are vastly more complicated than either a watch or a computer.", I am unsure whether or not you understand the nature of the complexity of the two systems, the one biological, (based upon selective activation of particular components of the genome--the process called "differentiation", whereby a toenail cell expresses that component of the genome responsible for creating new toenails), and the other electromechanical, whereby specific components of a watch or computer are activated. The human genome is now essentially mapped out, available to anyone with internet connection, unlike the interior of a computer....It is only a matter of months, or less than a decade, before someone manufactures a clone of themselves....

To better understand evolution it is useful to study fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster, because their life cycle is so much shorter than a human's. The entire genome has been studied for more than a decade, and one can explain in great detail how mutations occur, and the consequences of those mutations. Cell biology is not so "amazing" as you seem to anticipate. Nothing more, really, than a bit of chemistry mixed with mathematics. Personally, I find J.S. Bach, Cesar Franck and Sergei Prokofiev far more amazing...

avi

rhutchin

No false dichotomy between atheism and Christianity is in the Wager. It's a straightforward risk analysis where atheism is not considered because its risk of loss is zero. The Wager tells you why to accept the truth of the Bible and that reason is that there is no loss in accepting that truth and infinite loss in rejecting that truth.

Sure, you can be skeptical enough to search out the issues but not to discount it altogether.

Depends on your reputation. I would think (just from the comments you write) that you are telling the truth (that you saw a person walking on water) but then I would think that there must have been something unusual going on. After all, magicians do some pretty neat things that make us think that they did something when they did not. Or maybe the water was super saturated with salt. The real issue is whether that person not only walked on water but healed people and claimed that he was God.

Deus Ex

What if the true God is Allah? What if Allah does not appreciate my credulous acceptance of Christian claims? The Wager is useless in this situation. I would be punished for believing the 'lie' of Christianity. Pascal's Wager is an either/or scenario; it does not account for a plurality of incompatible God claims.

rhutchin

OK. It was my fault. Your argument is that referring to God as "the father" makes Jesus appear merely human like everyone else. Referring to God as "my father" makes Jesus different from everyone else, i.e., divine. Thus, "my" would have been intentionally added to reinforce the idea that Jesus was God.

So, its an interesting hypothesis. Might someone else hypothesize that others removed "my" for the purpose of making Jesus merely a human agent of God since it seems that many people wanted to promote this perception. Thus, we would have the Byzantine side jealously guarding the Scriptures to ensure authenticity.

Anyway, I don't know enough to argue the point.

On this Gill writes, "Not in person, for the Father must be a distinct person from the Son, and the Son a distinct person from the Father; and which is further manifest, from the use of the verb plural, "I and [my] Father", esmen, "we are one"; that is, in nature and essence, and perfections, particularly in power; since Christ is speaking of the impossibility of plucking any of the sheep, out of his own and his Father's hands; giving this as a reason for it, their unity of nature, and equality of power; so that it must be as impracticable to pluck them out of his hands, as out of his Father's, because he is equal with God the Father, and the one God with him."

We might also say that Jesus meant that He and God were in agreement as God's thoughts were His thoughts contrary to that which God said to man through Isaiah, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD."

Thus, you would not reduce this to X = Y

rhutchin

The Wager can only evaluate two positions where the risks are different. In the situation where the risk is the same and involves different gods with equal risks associated with believing/not believing, the Wager could not be used. The Wager was designed to show a person that he should believe in a god rather than not believing in any god but not determine which one to believe (so long as the risks identified with the gods are the same). The Wager merely tells a person to avoid the greater risk.

Deus Ex

Initially, you would believe that I am telling the truth, but that there had to be a rational explanation for what I saw. In other words, you would be skeptical that I witnessed a miracle.

No, this is part of the same problem. You and I did not witness this Galilean preacher heal anyone. We have stories that he did. These stories should be met with the same skepticism as my story of a neighbor who can walk on liquid water. The problem then becomes how can you prove what did or did not happen a couple of thousand years ago.

This is why I feel that agnosticism is justified.

Deus Ex

If Christianity and atheism were the only two choices in the world, then the Wager might have a little more merit, except for the fact that a person cannot consciously choose to believe things that they simply do not believe.
To put it in calvinist terms the reprobate would be incapable of believing, therefore the wager would be useless--he or she simply would not believe that there is any risk due to their fallen nature.

rhutchin

Good question. As God explained to Job.

Job 12
6 The tabernacles of robbers prosper, and they that provoke God are secure; into whose hand God bringeth abundantly.
7 But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee:
8 Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee: and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee.
9 Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the LORD hath wrought this?
10 In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind.
11 Doth not the ear try words? and the mouth taste his meat?

How else could the honeybee have attained such knowledge?

So, in less than a decade, we shall see. We may map out the genome as we can the interior of the computer. Even though one has mapped the insides of a computer, what gives the computer life? Is it sufficient to give it electricity? What is a computer without its programming and what is the genome without something to tell it what to do? Who or what tells the heart cell to do its job and the toe cell its job? My point is that the human body is much, much more complex than a computer. If one posits that the human body can arise from natural causes, then it should be much easier for natural causes to create computers (as well as cars, planes, buildings and everything else man can build) for they are very simple things compared to the human body.

Yet no one can build a fruit fly nor even entice mutations to convert the fruit fly into something that is not a fruit fly. However, they can get many, sometimes weird, varieties of fruit fly. God created the fruit fly and man plays with it.

rhutchin

Yep. I find that interesting. People can do the math, think through the problem, evaluate the risks, and understand the costs to themselves yet they find themselves indifferent to the results and unmotivated to act. Calvinism doesn't say that people don't believe the risks, but only that they are not motivated to do anything about them.