From: Don Winterstein (dfwinterstein@msn.com)
Date: Sun Nov 02 2003 - 03:03:00 EST
Your point is one that almost every Christian would agree with: The incarnation is fundamental to Christianity. It implies both that God acts in the physical realm and that physical devices could have detected Christ while he was on earth.
Having lost track of your original thrust, I now wonder why you'd want to make an issue of a point that all traditional Christians accept. 2000 years ago it was crucial for God to make it clear that Christ was a physical person. Once we accept this, any further value in detecting him lies in the spiritual realm, not the physical.
The apostle Paul wrote (2 Corinthians 5:16), ".From now on we regard no one as merely human. Though we may have looked upon Christ as merely human, we now do so no longer." (A literal translation would have "know...according to the flesh" in place of "regard...as merely human.")
Jesus on film presumably would look like an ordinary man. While in some sense you could legitimately say you had a picture of God, the picture would tell you nothing important about God. Of course, it would be different if you had a film covering his entire ministry. That would be of great interest.
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: Alexanian, Moorad
To: Don Winterstein
Cc: asa
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 6:03 AM
Subject: RE: A "God" Part of the Brain?
I mean an ACTUAL film. What is the difference between an actual film to an eye witness? Read my original message "...Purely physical devices could also detect Christ, i.e., God." My point is that God acts in the physical realm as well as the spiritual and miraculous events are also depicted in a film of the actual event.
Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: Don Winterstein [mailto:dfwinterstein@msn.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 4:59 AM
To: Alexanian, Moorad
Cc: asa
Subject: Re: A "God" Part of the Brain?
Moorad asks:
What would you do if there were an actual film of Christ resurrecting Lazarus or a film of Christ going through the resurrection process?
Not sure what you're aiming at here, but anyone who's seen a recent movie or two would almost certainly conclude that the film used "special effects" and did not show an actual resurrection. Film probably constitutes one of the least reliable forms of testimony for modern man: with a little effort you can make it show any imaginable thing convincingly. So this raises the perennial question as to what kind of testimony is convincing. Ultimately it's got to be spiritual testimony, not physical.
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: Alexanian, Moorad
To: Don Winterstein ; Dr. Blake Nelson
Cc: asa
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 7:35 AM
Subject: RE: A "God" Part of the Brain?
What would you do if there were an actual film of Christ resurrecting Lazarus or a film of Christ going through the resurrection process?
Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Don Winterstein
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 3:26 AM
To: Dr. Blake Nelson; Alexanian, Moorad
Cc: asa
Subject: Re: A "God" Part of the Brain?
Alexanian Moorad wrote in part:
"...Purely physical devices could also detect Christ, i.e., God."
To know Jesus from purely physical data is not to know him as God. Only if one sees him with spiritually enlightened eyes does one detect God. "The spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing." John 6:63.
So the fact that one of the persons of the Trinity has a physical body does not significantly change the rules for knowing God.
Don
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Nov 02 2003 - 03:02:18 EST