Robert, You’re right. Intellect, reason, experience, what’s in our hearts and minds, etc. can not tell us specifically who God is. It seems to me that this can only be known through a direct revelation of some sort. This is why I believe that God was there in the beginning as a man, and that this is what John 1:1 is telling us. Should man keep God’s word, live by it, and teach our children then I suppose that we would all know about Jesus (God in the flesh), and who God is.
LLC- By chance are you LDS??? I agree with your premise in theory about telling us the revelation of exactly who God and Jesus are. However, we are all prone to failing in so many ways and is why Jesus had to fulfill the law for us. It seems if we go strictly by the Bible then the Holy Spirit is schizophrenic because He is supposed to guide us into all truth and have us all unified. Almost as son as Jesus ascended division occurred in the church and it has just spread like wildfire ever since. I think because we are in these broken vessels that faith trusting ultimately as Job did without clearcut answer to our minds is what is needed.
Robert, Paidion has diagnosed me as a modalist, but I suppose I could be an LDS too, depending on what that is. I’m not sure what all the labels stand for. I think I may just be a hodgepodge of a bunch of things??? 
I think C.S. Lewis was wise when he said that we are saved through Christ, and not necessarily through the knowledge of Christ. This also was brought out at the end of Narnia with the king who worshipped a god other than Aslan, but actually recognised and sought who Aslan was.
When we are born we don’t have knowledge of the Bible and as already has been pointed out many people do not know the Bible and therefore don’t even know who Jesus is in order to reject or accept Him in the first place. On the grounds that we enter this world literally without the Bible and later read and learn the Bible, I don’t think that it is necessary to know God only through reading the Bible. It is more that when we seek God, as Lewis would say, through an inward knowledge of that Reality indicating right and wrong, do we actually recognise in the Bible those same characteristics. The Bible is a revelation in words of what we were feeling or believing before we read it. The Bible really is a collection of writings from other people having found the same thing… 
Now I am no advocate of absolute right and wrongs per se, because in every culture there are different ways of looking at things, and varying contexts will always reveal the same actions to be right or wrong in different situations. This is what I believe Jesus did, He broke the Sabbath for a greater more righteous reason than keeping it. What we can gather from scripture is the general guidelines and philosophy that Jesus gave. I reckon Jesus spoke in parables and seemingly tantalized us so that we could (by the Holy Spirit) learn how to be mature and righteous in various contexts so that we won’t rely on a text book to tell us how to act. The right actions in a given context will be learnt through relation with the Holy Spirit, not a rule book. The Bible does give us general principles and is helpful for discussion of ethics and relations with God an others, but was never intended to be a text book of 1. 2. 3. all you need to know about Jesus Christ…
I hope I am on topic :b
I base these concepts on Galations 5:13-14
“For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.”
I would say that knowing God through Jesus via the bible or by word of mouth may be a necessity in some cases. I don’t think all that is right and wrong is simply subject to interpretation. I believe that there are some absolutes. To avoid such “he said, she said” dilemmas, we need to know what God says. For example, we know that it is wrong to go around killing people. Some might say that it is just a form of population control. Who’s to say in such a case? It is God that says that this is not right. Who then is God? Is He just a figment of our own imaginations? No. We know who God is because He came to Earth in the form of a man to tell us all of these things.
Hi Daniel- you are indeed spot on as far as the topic buddy I think you add some very good insights. i taught my sunday school class today on the subjects of inerrancy and infallibility. i am sure a few believe now i am a heretic and on the highway to hell 
ah well Seriously though, I think there a lot of ways to explore these ideas and this is why we are still debating it 2000 plus years since it was first given!!! i think the ultimate point of Job, as well as the initial episode that started all this, the serpent causing Eve to question Gods trustworthiness, is what we all face each day, and intensely when we face our mortality. Is God good all the time??/ Am i safe and secure with Him in Jesus??? Faith/trust answers this as opposed to intellectual understanding or any degree of absolute certainty.
LLC- LDS = mormons or latterday saints 
Thanks Robert. From the sounds of it I think we are on a similar wavelength. Going back to Descartes and his “I think therefore I exist”, essentially no one can ever be absolutely sure of anything (IMO). We can only view things from our current perspective and understanding, which is always changing in degrees from each day to the next. I like what Harbarmas said about how language and everything is subjective to a degree… but seeing everything being completely relative is too simple. He proposed what is called “Ideal speech” which more or less means that people do actually change their perspective through experience and discussion, which means that there is a virtual “truth” that people attain to or try to attain to.
To say that truth is completely relative would be ignoring the purpose or use of Ideal Speech which does have its positives as LLC points out. It has its positives because Ideal Speech outlines guidelines that generally apply to all people in various contexts.
However to say that Ideal Speech is Actual rather than Virtual would be false too. Instead of making a blanket rule that applies no matter what, in each situation we need to explain how it applies. For example, I agree that one of God’s guidelines is that killing is not very helpful towards a Godly society. Yet, I cannot say that this rule applies in EVERY case. I cannot say that I would not kill someone if it meant protecting the life of another (I would do what I can to avoid it). Protecting my own life would be another matter, as the martyrs for Christ has found out.
Here is an ethical dilemma on a similar note. A woman in prison is disallowed to feed her baby (like the martyrdom stories I hear) unless she denies Christ. Would it be more Christlike let her baby starve and not deny Christ, or, verbally deny Christ and feed her baby. Each person would do something different I believe and each needs to be sensitive to their own conscience.
For me, feeding the baby is more Christlike, because caring for the baby is being Christ in action, rather than words. Christ took on the sin of the world so that he could save others… could that apply to us in some situations?
Hi Daniel- great explanations you ly out here I do agree and think we are on very similar wavelengths. I always thought Descartes needed to reverse it- I am therefore i think but it works eithr way. i wonder if he knew the significance of saying I AM?? So true what you say about relativism as well. Because we are all subjective beings in our existence, we must have partial relativism at play. But we also have the absolute ideals you mention. If you say, all is r4elative you are making an absolute statement. Another is, there are no facts only interpretations well, is that a fact OR your interpretation?? 
God has to have a reason for making faith a necessity I wonder though what it would be like if He provided a theophany we could all see at all times so there was no dobt for anyone at all to see and know He was there. What difference would it make??? Thanks for sharing daniel
Good discussion.
An interesting part of the O.T. narrative is that, the closer God drew to His people, the more they rebelled. Not each and every one of them, I’m sure…but the record does seem clear that the nearness of God did not in itself necessarily provoke a loving and obedient response. I’m pretty sure there is a lesson in that, somewhere.
As for Descartes, any skeptical conclusions he came to, I think derived from his faulty ‘cogito’: wasn’t it a foundation-less reduction of what a human being IS, to reduce that human to ‘knowing’ only that it can doubt, so therefore exists? It actually is rather amazing that such a poor and shriveled caricature should become the basis of much serious Western philosophy. But such is Rationalism, as espoused by Rene, at least.
Skepticism is necessary, but not as a foundation, it is more of a tool in dealing with the reality we share.
Yeah, it is interesting that people fell away from God even with substantial signs and evidence for Him! It shows that God does the work in our hearts and not something that we can generate necessarily… that is only my opinion though.
I have never thought of reading Descartes as “I am therefore I think”. As you imply, some people apparently are sceptical of even Descartes’ certainty ha ha. They say “Something is happening” should be more accurate for what we should consider as certainty… but as Dave B points out, it just ends in regressive scepticism. I actually value scepticism, as it helps to keep people from succumbing to destructive Groupthink. God never intended us to be blind followers…
It is impossible to become a pure skeptic IMO. Every desconstruction will only go so far before people actually construct a reality which will enable them to even live. This is where we can admit that EVERY faith (or “non faith” for that matter - I don’t think there is such a thing) has holes in it, but our responsibility/tendency is to piece together the best explanation for the “reality” we perceive with supporting evidence at hand.
Yeah, I have often thought about why God has made Himself so obscure to people generally speaking. I wonder whether the reason for that is because God wants people to seek and yearn after Him. If God was fully in the open, it wouldn’t be the same to say that we pursue Him as it would where it required faith. Faith is more about relationship building rather than fact building. I would’t need to emotionally trust God so much if He was openly there. My relationship with God is kind of like how I don’t know everything about my wife, yet I choose to trust her. That is a more powerful/meaningful relationship right there than full certainty. Push through paradoxes to trust the character behind.
But of course, still seek what is true, or in the case of our limited abilities - seek what is most reasonable.
What difference do you think it would make if God revealed Himself more so to humanity?
Thee difference between what is right and wrong can become harder to define as the world becomes more populated, complex and other ideas and beliefs are introduced. We must know our God and what He says or we would not be able to judge correctly. Say for example, one goes to a fabric store to buy a foot of cloth. Each person’s foot is a different size. If there is no set standard, things could become quite chaotic. Man himself could solve the problem by declaring that a foot is nine inches. But is this true? If it were not for Jesus, I would say that we could easily be deceived into thinking something is right when it’s actually not. Lies can often become the truth in this way. As in Daniel’s example about the woman and her baby, what would be more Christlike? Knowing Jesus would help her in making the decision on what to do.
I hear you LLC. I am just wary of drawing lines everywhere without taking in the context. The drawing of lines has been a thing the Pharasees often did and Jesus seemed to fight against it. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would guide us into all truth which seems to be a step away from drawing lines or making exact measurements. The law was used like a yardstick for centuries, but appears not to be how God intended us to live eventually. We are now priests and hear from God, each one of us. The Bible does give us an advantage and additional guidance because it is a collection of ideas from others who have heard from God also… almost like being “peer reviewed” ha ha. Together as the body of Christ with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the wrestling with Biblical principles, we enter into maturity, rather than children of the law.
Hi Daniel,
I enjoy thinking about ethical dilemmas, and dealing with this one could get people to think.
As for moral theories, I don’t subscribe to either absolutism or to relativism or. Absolutism is the view that every moral imperative ought to be followed without exception. Erwin Lutzer, a classmate of mine at the Bible School I attended for a year, and now pastor of Moody Church, wrote a book on morality from the absolutist point of view. When faced with the dilemma as to whether one should lie to save a life, his position was that he would do so, but would then need to confess the sin of lying to God and ask His forgiveness. If a person chose not to lie, then this person would need to confess the sin of failing to save a life when he could have, and ask God’s forgiveness. My point of view is that in this case it would be morally right to lie and save the person’s life. Since one would be doing the morally right thing, he did not sin.
Relativism is the view that moral imperatives are relative to the situation or to the person. What is right for me might be wrong for you. To me that is merely conducting oneself according to one’s emotions.
My position is that of moral hierarchalism. This is the view that all moral imperatives are arranged in a hierarchy so that in cases of moral conflict, one ought to do the thing that is higher in the hierarchy.
While it is true that when faced with the dilemma you presented, some would verbally deny Christ and so that the baby could eat, while others would not do so and allow the baby to starve. But I don’t believe that both of these choices would be morally right. Like you, I think the woman should verbally deny Christ and let the baby eat. I think that because the moral imperative to prevent suffering and death take precedence over the moral imperative not to verbally deny Christ. Therefore I believe the choice to let the baby eat and live is the morally right choice, and the other is morally wrong.
Hi Paidion,
I do like your hierarchal approach and prefer to the other extremes. I still wouldn’t strongly adhere to it due to the complexity of various situations that we find ourselves in. God could have given us a list of the most important sins to avoid and the least most important long with the context that would apply, but He didn’t. I think that our relationship with God and sin needs to be dynamic… though not completely ignoring “morals” as with relativism.
There are a few things that I’d like to add to the discussion here. Should we make another post on moral dilemmas? It is only ironic that I should ask this since I seem to be in one at the moment. I just don’t want to get in trouble for going too far off the topic.
Paidion- i think your view makes good sense. Sounds akin to the wisdom of solomon In thinking about knowin Jesus apart from the Bible, how can those who have never had a Bible or never had one they could read and understand for whatever reason, be left in the cold?? Jesus HAS to be able to be known apart from it, especially since He is the Living Word. How do even all of us who HAVE the Bible know jesus apart from it??
LLC- I would like to discuss moral dilemmas for sure. Feel free to start a topic thread on that if you like. Being new here, not sure how much leeway the moderators give for rabbit trails 
Btw, are there not as many posting on the forum as therte used to be?? I expected or at least hoped to see much more people posting than i have seen in my short time on here thus far. Hopefully more will be lured back 
I have been thinking about this awhile. None of the NT was written when Jesus was on earth. At various times in history there was no Bible available to people. Some places still have no Bible in their language. Many people have no mature understanding of the Bible. The gospel is trusting in Jesus and we don’t need the Bible to do that do we?? God is love and wants us to know Him and Jesus relationally, so why has there been this constant focus on having to read and study the Bible in order to know Jesus??
Actually I think Mark was a contemporaneous account of Jesus ministry since there are many small personal details that I think would be difficult to recall 20 years later.
Yes you are right that many folks (like muslims) have never heard the bible but I think in Rev 20 the books that are opened to be read to the resurrected are the gospels or the entire bible rather then a book of their sins. Certainly it’s very helpful to read the gospels to know Jesus if we have that opportunity in this life.
I’ve sure enjoyed reading this thread. Here are my thoughts:
We come to know God by the Spirit when we receive Jesus, and we know in our hearts that God raised him from the dead. This is nothing one can learn from instruction. He has given us the mind of Christ, and filled us with his Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth and to remind us of everything that Jesus taught. We have Christ within us, the hope of glory. We may change our ‘perspective through experience and discussion’, but to me, there is a core truth that will never change, that Christ has been raised and he lives in me.
Then we have the writings in the Bible which reveal who Jesus is, as well as show us the history of man’s seeking and relating to God. This is a wonderful thing.
‘’…what it would be like if He provided a theophany we could all see at all times so there was no doubt for anyone at all to see and know He was there.’’
The sad thing to me is I think he has, but it is only by the Spirit of God that we can see it, and the burden is on us to clear our hearts of worldly affection so we are* able *to see it. Just thinking, it is possible to look at someone we have known intimately for decades and suddenly distrust them, and it is not necessarily their fault. It is the LIFE of Christ that we need in our lives, and our love for others is the proof thereof.
I have heard many accounts of Christ appearing to Muslims, and they might not even see a Bible for years afterward. I understand there are many stories like - they are called ‘missionary stories’ - a child went with his mother to the Buddha statue and while she is busy laying her fruit and flowers at his feet and lighting candles, he goes out back and says “God, I know you are not in that statue in there.” Years later, when a missionary comes and talks about Jesus, the now grown boy knows exactly of whom the missionary speaks.
Well before I found God, the beauty of the skies and lands of the Southwest told me that I could not have such appreciation for them had I evolved from an amoeba. This was a beginning…
When we was hippies we thought we had a corner on ‘love joy and peace’ but it was counterfeit. We all were doing violence by trading partners, by supporting the Mafia with each purchase of drugs that someone was risking his life to obtain for them; in those days, I wore a cross around my neck as I went from camp to camp. Ay yi yi!! It is only through Christ, and the seeking of him, that I have found true love joy and peace, and the hope that one day I will be truly humble and compassionate.
I love this, DaveB! “God in His goodness and severity will work out the issue of bringing true knowledge of His Son to each one, even after death.”
I skimmed through the posts of this thread and if someone already brought this up, I’m so sorry. Mucho apologies. My speed reading is a bit rusty.
But we do have an account of someone coming to know Jesus without a bible in a sense,
That would be Saul, later Paul on the Road to Damascus.
I realize much of the conversation has been directed towards some body that has never heard of Jesus but Saul did not believe in Jesus and I took a pretty good wallop for him to come around. He obviously was knowledgeable about the OT scriptures and did not see Christ in them before that fateful day.
Direct revelation from the source. It is possible.
Something to chew on.
Fascinating stuff by the way!
How did we miss Saul - Paul - very good. It is Christ Himself that we come to…