BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Not much more detail there for me, but the 144,000 are literal Jewish people, their tribal names being enunciated.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is Christianity support?
- Thread starter Godobeyer
- Start date
Not much more detail there for me, but the 144,000 are literal Jewish people, their tribal names being enunciated.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
1. LUKE claims to have been an historian (Luke 1:1 and on).
2. Can we sit on one or two ideas at a time instead of straying far afield?
All has bearing on all in the NT, since:
1) Paul signed his letters in his hand
2) The odds are lean against multiple independent writers coming up with the same fabrications
3) You write as if Paul and Luke are the only two writers. There are at least one dozen NT authors, 11 of them referencing their relationship to Jesus or details from his earthly life (and Paul arguably showed his knowledge by quoting Jesus as not found in other writers)
You are repeating this line again. But it’s not slight-of-hand, taking for example just a few prophecies of Jesus:
Jesus predicted Herod’s Temple would be destroyed, by whom and it what manner, the Roman diaspora, that Jews would be persecuted in each nation to where they fled, and that they would return to Israel, recreating a Jewish state but with a secular, non-Christian emphasis.
Since all these prophecies are obviously true and can be verified in mere minutes if one is ignorant of modern Israel, we can accept other prophecies of Jesus, such as “I will rise from the dead, so that those who trust me will receive eternal life.”
On what basis would you say above both that you have a non-academic, spiritual belief system and a belief system that is grounded in the sciences? Do you see a tension there between those opposing viewpoints?
I can certainly gedanken this as an experiment. Let’s see:
You have faith in Jesus but don’t believe in Him.
You read Jesus’s words for solace and inspiration but He didn’t author them or say them.
Etc.
Faith and belief ARE fused together for simple reasons. Here are some:
*Faith = trust = I find believable people and things more trustworthy. Even the supernatural is believable to me now and trustworthy, as is the numinous or divine.
*Hebrews 11:1 – “Without FAITH, it is impossible to please God, for everyone who comes to God must BELIEVE that He exists, and rewards those who seek Him.”
The idea of uncoupling faith/trust from belief is not a biblical concept.
I do understand what you mean by overcoming doubts via faith and spiritual eyes, however, Jesus is bereft of power if He becomes one of many spiritual options for you, and someone you don’t believe in as Lord and Savior. Do you agree?
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Have it your way.
Then why doesn't he cite any of his sources, for one thing? Josephus did, and Luke was not one of them.
The term I used was "pseudepigraphical". What that word means is it was written by someone else, many years after Paul lived, signed with his name as if he wrote them. This is good place to start learning more about this, if you are interested in what modern scholarship agrees is the reality of this (which I accept as valid): Pauline Epistles | The DeuteroPaulines
In addition to the seven generally accepted Pauline Epistles (1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philemon, Philippians, Romans, and 1 Thessalonians), there is a second list of epistles generally thought to have been written after Paul, with the intent of modifying his image or extending his his influence. These are six (Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus), to which we may as well add Hebrews, which was probably in origin a theoretical homily and not a pseudo-epistle, but was given Pauline credentials at some point (probably at about the point when the Epistle of Jacob acquired its two exiguous mentions of Jesus), in order to qualify it for the canon, whose emerging entry rule was that all texts included had to have Apostolic credentials. So considered, the "Pauline" tradition consists of seven genuine documents and another seven spurious ones.
The genuine Paulines can more or less be harmonized, in terms of evolving doctrine or or the trajectory of Paul's preaching career, but this is not true of the DeuteroPaulines, which indeed extend our knowledge of "Paul," but in different and partly incompatible directions. In many ways, the postApostolic period was eager to relate itself to the Apostolic period, in order to establish doctrinal continuity, and also to revise our impressions of what the Apostolic Age had been about in the first place. The churches (still plural, though the tendency toward unified structure is obvious) were working out their retrospective self-image. One interesting thing is that this was not done monolithically, but was an effort of many hands, working on sometimes incompatible agendas for the future of what was not yet the Church.
The genuine Paulines can more or less be harmonized, in terms of evolving doctrine or or the trajectory of Paul's preaching career, but this is not true of the DeuteroPaulines, which indeed extend our knowledge of "Paul," but in different and partly incompatible directions. In many ways, the postApostolic period was eager to relate itself to the Apostolic period, in order to establish doctrinal continuity, and also to revise our impressions of what the Apostolic Age had been about in the first place. The churches (still plural, though the tendency toward unified structure is obvious) were working out their retrospective self-image. One interesting thing is that this was not done monolithically, but was an effort of many hands, working on sometimes incompatible agendas for the future of what was not yet the Church.
The above is one example of how I understand and treat the texts of the Bible. It's not your mother's chicken soup, in other words.
These "same" things you see are often times the work of someone's mashing them together into a theology, such as trying to "harmonize" the synoptic gospels as all one big consistent picture, which they are not. Aside from that, sure sometimes you'll have them saying the same things, but that's because they were copying from each other, Matthew copying from Mark; Luke copying from Matthew, and so forth. No "independent" thing here, no magic. These things grew and evolved quite naturally, not miraculously.
Yes, of course I'm not that ignorant there was more than them!
I do have a degree in this stuff, you know. I was only citing those two as examples of what I was saying. One thing about Paul's knowledge and his "quoting Jesus" is that he heard what he did, not by others teachings, but by a personal vision. That's not the same thing as oral tradition or having had the gospel preached to him. That's mystical experience. And here, I thought you did not trust subjective truths?Yes, and I'll continue to as it's valid. I'll explain a little how that trick is done....
Yes, the author of the gospel lived after the temple was destroyed and had Jesus in their story making a prediction of something that had already happen by the time the author wrote that into it. "Poof", the miracle vanishes right before our eyes.
Can you provide your reference on this one? Clearly by the time of the NT, there were already a diaspora in the Roman empire for the Jews. Paul was living in part of that in Asia Minor.
Nothing in their history could show that theme? How many times had they been conquered and dispersed already, just like lots of other little nations? (I'll make a prophecy here - you're going to say I'm anti-semitic or some other equally foul response to me, for who knows what irrational reason. Please don't, it's really a pointless distraction. I do not think in ethnocentric terms like that. I love everyone all the same. That's something Jesus taught).
Chapter and verse please? Let's examine the words you read and the meaning you put into it.
What they are is obviously after the fact events being read back into the texts. If you take the same texts you are using, which I think I mostly am aware of, and have someone from 200 years ago read them, he would have said this or that event he was familiar with was what was predicted in that verse.
Now, do something really impressive for me, and I promise I will be impressed, produce some theologian from the 19th century, or earlier, that laid out what you believe today these verse are saying will happen, and not someone from the 20th century who read into it after the fact. Find someone who said, "this is what you should expect to see, this prophecy is saying expect Israel to become a nation again, a secular one to put a point on it, and then afterwards Jesus will come and be their king". Please also provide citations for me. Can you do that for me?
No, I do not accept that as a prophecy. That was written by an author long after Jesus lived. They simply had his character predicting what the author already believed and wanted his readers to believe. This isn't hard to see.
I'll address the rest in a separate post as it's a shift of focus....
Last edited:
None whatsoever. Let's look at this. First, I did NOT say, a "spiritual belief system". I said my spiritual life is grounded in God, nor reason, nor science, nor theologies, nor beliefs. Spirituality is not a "belief system" as you put it. I would never, ever describe it as a belief system. Spirituality is a state of being. It is both before and beyond belief, but as such is is not in opposition to reason. It just simply is not about, nor based upon, reason. Period.
When it comes to my beliefs, they are based upon the best information we have available to us today, through modern science and other fields of academic pursuits (the things you reject). All I am saying here is that what I accept as valid, you reject, yet for some reason don't want others to think you do.
How I tie this together is actually pretty simple. My faith is grounded in the Eternal, and that is the anchor I rest my soul within. How I think about things, how you think about things, how every single one of us think about things is constantly evolving and changing. You mistake knowledge about the world and ourselves, with God. You can completely change how you believe, but God is still the same. You do not understand this, yet I wish you did, or will at some point in your life.
That's a different kind of "belief". I don't believe the Gospels present the facts taken at face value. However, there is truth in them which I do believe. I believe, when it speaks truth to my own experiences and realizations. All of it is fiction, yet it speaks truth nonetheless. Something again, you do not comprehend yet.
Jesus inspired something within others that became "Jesus". So in that sense, I believe in "Jesus", because that is what Jesus symbolizes. That Spirit within us. I feel free to recognize what are simply cultural artifacts and jettison them when recognized.
Yeah, no. What I'm talking about is much beyond and before such trivial things. Faith has to do with a state of being which reaches into the dark, towards the light, not knowing what is there, other than the Source of their own being. THAT is faith, not this trite belief stuff.
There's a lot of stuff you believe that are not biblical concepts!
It does not need to be in the Bible for you to see truth in it. My goodness, what a small, tiny little world must exist for you if you limit your knowledge of things only to what is on the pages of the Bible! No wonder you reject modern science and religious scholarship! Actually, no you do not understand. When you say I am saying you "overcome doubt via faith", you do not have single clue what I am talking about. I would NEVER say that. Again, you are putting words into my mouth, and imagining I am some other person who lives only in your imagination. It is through doubt, that faith continues to grow! It is the dismantling, and discarding of beliefs that faith allows! This is the exact opposite of what you manufactured from your imagination that I believe.
No. I don't agree in the least.
Last edited:
Hi Windwalker ;
I have not been following this thread but am curious regarding your recent discussion with Billiardsball regarding the context of New Testament Luke. I did not watch Carriers video but am wondering if you are referring to the context of Luke as hagiographa, that is, a paraphrase of or rewriting of the bible and early Christian traditions? Obviously he has paraphrased some of his sources for his description of his own narative (whether it be Mark, "Q", or early oral traditions the author was describing).
I think that the inclusion of Luke into the category of "rewritten bible" is comfortable for most of the apocryphologists and scholars in hagiographa and pseudoepigraphs. In the discussions I've read, I don't think anyone has made any conclusive argument for how much Luke was repeating any single source although it seems that he borrowed from multiple sources in his version of the early Christian traditions. I can't tell from your comments if this is the context you are aiming at regarding NT Luke, or are describing Luke in a different context as re-written hagiographa like some of the experts in pseudoepigraphs have done.
If so, I am not debating this point (it's obvious Luke is paraphrasing of some other sources to some extent), but am merely wanting clarification.
In any case, I hope your journey is good.
Clear
φιακδρτωω
I have not been following this thread but am curious regarding your recent discussion with Billiardsball regarding the context of New Testament Luke. I did not watch Carriers video but am wondering if you are referring to the context of Luke as hagiographa, that is, a paraphrase of or rewriting of the bible and early Christian traditions? Obviously he has paraphrased some of his sources for his description of his own narative (whether it be Mark, "Q", or early oral traditions the author was describing).
I think that the inclusion of Luke into the category of "rewritten bible" is comfortable for most of the apocryphologists and scholars in hagiographa and pseudoepigraphs. In the discussions I've read, I don't think anyone has made any conclusive argument for how much Luke was repeating any single source although it seems that he borrowed from multiple sources in his version of the early Christian traditions. I can't tell from your comments if this is the context you are aiming at regarding NT Luke, or are describing Luke in a different context as re-written hagiographa like some of the experts in pseudoepigraphs have done.
If so, I am not debating this point (it's obvious Luke is paraphrasing of some other sources to some extent), but am merely wanting clarification.
In any case, I hope your journey is good.
Clear
φιακδρτωω
Last edited:
What Carrier was getting at does seem to align with this. In his presentation he sides with those who say there just isn't support for Q, so he sees Luke as the 3rd Gospel written, drawing from Mark and Matthew (as Matthew had drawn from Mark previously). He sees Luke's Gospel as a trying to take what Mark's message of "everyone is invited", and Matthews emphasis on Jewish law, and saying in his Gospel to the two schools of thought essentially, "Can't we all just get along"? That's an interesting understanding, and there is support for that. He also talks about how Luke clearly was sourcing from Josephus, and evidence of errors in copying from Josephus got woven into his narrative.
I'm not sure if that all answers you question, but to me it does make a lot of sense as I see these texts as evolving and growing stories to promote the early Christian movement. It's not necessary for them to be miraculously delivered from heaven in order for them to have truth and value in them.
Thanks for your well wishes.
Hi Windwalker
The use of the implication that Luke “cribbed” from other texts may be the wrong term. For example, "cribbing" material is tainted with the modern concept of stealing or plagarizing. Though Luke probably IS using various source texts and oral stories and re-writing them, I do not think he felt that he was “plagarizing”, but rather, I think the early writers of the various "rewritten bibles" were, I think, offering their version of events in the hope of preserving what they thought was the “correct sense” of the story.
Even the worst paraphrase bibles we see in our day were probably created by individuals or groups who are trying to put what they think is the "correct slant" or correct "interpretation" into the biblical texts they create. This is nothing new but has always been done.
For example, though the LXX is the older version of the bible, when Aquila, Symmachus and theodotian offer their versions, I think they saw themselves as offering a “corrected” version of the bible and did not see themselves as “re-interpreting” the text. The Biblical Targums that seem to readers to be paraphrasic were, I think, simply the interpretations of the bible which were seen by their authors as “corrections”. That is, I think their motives were often (not always) good and they did not see themselves as adding to textual corruptions.
For example, the problem of revocalizations of the Hebrew that resulted in different texts (before the Masoretes added vowels to their version of the text) often represented, for the most part, different interpretations of the texts, rather than attempts to corrupt the texts.
Paraphrases and rewritten bibles often were very popular and thus, several remain in the eastern canon (e.g. Jubilees, Enoch, barnabas, etc.) but were not placed into the western canon. The point is that such re-writing as Luke is engaging in, i.e. historical hagiagrapha were very common and very popular and biblical in eastern canons and we see some of them in early NT canons (e.g. Codex Sinaiticus). Obviously the writer of Lukes’ text was popular enough that it made it into the western canon.
I use Jubilees as an example since it made it into the eastern bible and, as Evans points out, Jubilees seems to have multiple parallel methodologies to Luke. While Lukes rewrite emphasizes different aspects of these stories, I do not think this was strict plagiarism, but an author that is trying to tell a more “correct” version of stories that were sacred to him.
Well, good luck coming to your own models of these historical issues. I may look at Carriers video sometime. If I do, I’ll either comment or PM you with my take on it.
Good journey Windwalker.
φιακαφιζω
The use of the implication that Luke “cribbed” from other texts may be the wrong term. For example, "cribbing" material is tainted with the modern concept of stealing or plagarizing. Though Luke probably IS using various source texts and oral stories and re-writing them, I do not think he felt that he was “plagarizing”, but rather, I think the early writers of the various "rewritten bibles" were, I think, offering their version of events in the hope of preserving what they thought was the “correct sense” of the story.
Even the worst paraphrase bibles we see in our day were probably created by individuals or groups who are trying to put what they think is the "correct slant" or correct "interpretation" into the biblical texts they create. This is nothing new but has always been done.
For example, though the LXX is the older version of the bible, when Aquila, Symmachus and theodotian offer their versions, I think they saw themselves as offering a “corrected” version of the bible and did not see themselves as “re-interpreting” the text. The Biblical Targums that seem to readers to be paraphrasic were, I think, simply the interpretations of the bible which were seen by their authors as “corrections”. That is, I think their motives were often (not always) good and they did not see themselves as adding to textual corruptions.
For example, the problem of revocalizations of the Hebrew that resulted in different texts (before the Masoretes added vowels to their version of the text) often represented, for the most part, different interpretations of the texts, rather than attempts to corrupt the texts.
Paraphrases and rewritten bibles often were very popular and thus, several remain in the eastern canon (e.g. Jubilees, Enoch, barnabas, etc.) but were not placed into the western canon. The point is that such re-writing as Luke is engaging in, i.e. historical hagiagrapha were very common and very popular and biblical in eastern canons and we see some of them in early NT canons (e.g. Codex Sinaiticus). Obviously the writer of Lukes’ text was popular enough that it made it into the western canon.
I use Jubilees as an example since it made it into the eastern bible and, as Evans points out, Jubilees seems to have multiple parallel methodologies to Luke. While Lukes rewrite emphasizes different aspects of these stories, I do not think this was strict plagiarism, but an author that is trying to tell a more “correct” version of stories that were sacred to him.
Well, good luck coming to your own models of these historical issues. I may look at Carriers video sometime. If I do, I’ll either comment or PM you with my take on it.
Good journey Windwalker.
φιακαφιζω
Last edited:
I will admit that the way Carrier characterizes what he sees in the way these texts were created in negative terms, such as a lie, fraud, cribbing, etc. I know Ehrman uses these terms as well, and they haven't always sat well with me to a certain degree because of the suggested connotation; a simple lie as opposed to something more creative. I much prefer understanding them as part of the mythmaking process, and while it is in fact adding color to the text, the intention is to create an inspirational story about this character Jesus as a support to the evolving Jesus movement.
Carrier describes this "cribbing" in the video beginning at 22:35 stating, "[Luke] appears to have used other material to crib color and background material for his story". I don't necessarily see that as untrue, but I wouldn't agree it's a case of foisting a lie upon others with the absolute intent to deceive (if that is truly what he thinks). Even if they were themselves not actual historians, yet they wrote in the style of one (a pseudo historian), it is towards the intention to add background color to advance the storyline to inspire faith. Accuracy was not the true intent, despite that bit of "color" at the beginning of the work. I tend to agree with the view that the Gospels are themselves as a whole, parables, and not intended at all to be read as a record of history, the way a Josephus or other historians would.
I can certainly see the "paraphase bible" point of view, and I don't doubt that bit at all. But I also see it as adding more storyline to it to advance it in different ways, but all of which reflect the feelings and views of the evolving communities. These stories are "clothing", upon those values and ideas of truth, dressing them in characters and stories in order to communicate them to one another. This is the very definition of mythology and the process of mythmaking.
As a footnote, that doesn't make the stories "false". They are "true" in that they are the true stories of the community, the values and beliefs of these people expressed in their stories. It makes them valuable, and useful to them, and to us today if and when they speak to us. That's what good mythologies do. They just simply should not remain confused with what we understand as factual or somewhat accurate history. If history was where the value is to be found, then why not use Josephus in these churches instead of the Bible? That's considered much more accurate than the Bible.
Yes, this is what I am saying more or less. I'm not going to dismiss it as "false" and just be done with it. Where I would maybe question some of the interpretation here in what you say is when you say they saw themselves as "correcting" the text. I tend to think we may be saying the same thing sort of, but to be clear I would say that "correcting" was more an alignment with what that group thought, rather than imaging them having done some sort of actual research into the "facts" of what happened and then trying to fix it by getting back to the facts of what happened, saying in effect, "no, Mark was wrong here, let's correct him". In a sense, yes in that they basically omitted what didn't align, or added what they wanted to advance from their points of view. But mythmaking seems a more accurate way to describe this process, and it does in that sense include "correcting" in the sense of alignment with that group.
Thanks. I'm always interested in the many ways we are coming to understand the nature of these things, and the value we can find in them after we see them in a more critical light. As I said earlier, I don't think the conclusion should be "it's all bunk!" when we realize the magician on stage did not actually cut a woman in half for real. That's a literalist imagination that can't enjoy inspiration for what it is without it being tied to a factual event.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
You are saying the Greek doesn't say what tribe each subgroup of 12,000 is from?
I'm having it the Bible's way, not "my way".
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
There's a lot of stuff you believe that are not biblical concepts!It does not need to be in the Bible for you to see truth in it. My goodness, what a small, tiny little world must exist for you if you limit your knowledge of things only to what is on the pages of the Bible! No wonder you reject modern science and religious scholarship!
I cannot have discourse with someone who continually labels those they oppose using falsities:
1. I do not reject modern science. I believe in data and observation, coupled with hypothesis and conclusions, the scientific method, etc. and therefore I interpret certain data differently than some others do regarding events unseen by any scientist today.
2. I do not reject religious scholarship. I merely remind you—though you find it uncomfortable—than not all religious scholars in history or presently adhere to the same beliefs as you.
3. I do not limit my knowledge of things to the scriptures.
I cannot continue this discussion with you if you will continue labeling me unjustly. I’ll wear a just label if it fits me.
And how many countless times have I called you out for constantly putting words into my mouth? And yet, I am patient with you. But regarding the above, you do reject modernity. Own it. You reject higher criticism. You reject the Theory of Evolution. and I could go on and on. You keep calling out conservative scholars to support you. I cite modern scholars, you label them "fringe". How is this you embracing modernity? How can you claim to accept modern science while you likely embrace groups like Answers in Genesis over them, as as some imaginary other "Alternative fact" reality you believe in?
I'm not hearing a response to these things, but rather you saying, "Stop it! Stop pointing this out, or I'm done here!" Well, be done here then. You forfeit. It's fine if you don't want to , or aren't ready to accept modernity, but don't lie saying you are when you aren't. It's just not where you are at. I am, however, and you should quit judging those like me who are as if we are on some path of destruction. That's what you do. That's what this discussion is all about. It's all about you as a Christian judging me and others like me as outside God because I don't believe in premodern truths as you do. That's the real issue here, and one you won't acknowledge either, but rather seek to rationalize and justify yourself against the Spirit of Truth.
I'm not hearing a response to these things, but rather you saying, "Stop it! Stop pointing this out, or I'm done here!" Well, be done here then. You forfeit. It's fine if you don't want to , or aren't ready to accept modernity, but don't lie saying you are when you aren't. It's just not where you are at. I am, however, and you should quit judging those like me who are as if we are on some path of destruction. That's what you do. That's what this discussion is all about. It's all about you as a Christian judging me and others like me as outside God because I don't believe in premodern truths as you do. That's the real issue here, and one you won't acknowledge either, but rather seek to rationalize and justify yourself against the Spirit of Truth.
Last edited:
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
You say I'm against the Spirit of Truth.
I know the Spirit of Truth as the Holy Spirit who inspired the scriptures. You are familiar with the Bible passages where the Spirit inspires the scriptures? But you disbelieve that most everything stated in the scriptures is truth, that is, you claim the writers didn't understand what they were writing. I'd call that untruth unless they were pure amanuenses, something you (I think, you tend to equivocate most everything) deny.
You say I'm anti-modern. Is that because I keep pointing out that you assume all modern theorizing is superior to all ancient thought? That seems to be your stance.
I've also noticed you respond with invective to simple, straightforward questions. You also tend to push rhetoric rather than ask me questions. You've never asked me what my justification is, for example, in rejecting transitional evolution or an old Earth, but simply label me as anti-modern. That's neither fair nor kind.
You'd like to me to be enlightened with some of the enlightenment you've received, but being neither fair nor kind, I must repudiate the "loving truth" you've found.
Having said that, gotten it off my chest, so to speak, you feel I judge you. If you've trusted Jesus as Savior, there's no judgment. But you believe in some kind of misbegotten, misunderstanding person who may have existed named Jesus (quoting Carrier's ahistorical Jesus) so I think your doctrine is fair game. I don't expect people who disbelieve the Bible to have more authority to teach it than I, just like I know about Judaism more than you. I was circumcised in my home on the 8th day after birth and so on. . .
The Spirit of Truth is the Spirit of Love. When you sit in the place of God and judge your brother or sister, that is against the Spirit.
But has He inspired your soul? If so, why did you sit in the throne of God judging others? If you were to judge as God judges, it would not manifest itself by judging their relationship with God with your beliefs and doctrines as the standard. Rather I would expect you would assume an attitude of humility, "Who am I to judge another in your stead, oh Lord?"
In my view, being inspired by the Spirit does not mean the thoughts and ideas you express from that state of being are thereby to be considered "magical" and without error. I do not accept that belief for myself. I'm not required to, thankfully!
I don't "disbelieve" them. I believe them within appropriate contexts, which when considered may entail me even disagreeing with them at some points, which I often do. I certainly am free to disagree with anyone's beliefs, including the Biblical writers. Again, I am not required to believe other's thoughts about God. I believe in God. How I believe will vary, as well it should!
So, you start with the belief that they took dictation (a notion I reject), and from there you judge my soul. That's not so nice of you. I think you are in error in your thinking, but I don't judge you. What makes you versus me different that way? Why do I not accuse you of being "lost" and whatnot? Why do you, and I do not? Explain that.
I'm not sure how you imagined this. I say you are anti-modern because you reject mainstream science as well as mainstream liberal scholarship. As far as "ancient thought" goes, when it comes to the things modern scholarship looks at, it goes much deeper and further than the ancients did. When it comes to science, we do in fact know considerably more than they did. Hands down. You calling it "theorizing", is a lie. It's not "theorizing". It's science. Whenever you speak in this language, with this level of misunderstanding, all it does is further confirm my saying you reject modernity.
Excuse me? Where? Please point to these "invectives". And what seems to you to be "simple, straightforward questions", may in fact be a whole lot more complicated than you assume. That's usually the case and why "straightforward" answers are not valid to expect.
Rhetoric? I provide very specific and detailed answered, as well as links. And you call this rhetoric? That's rhetoric, right there.
Maybe because I already know all the worthless anti-science answers from groups like AiG, and I do not consider them worthy to be discussed. I think Bill Nye made a mistake debating Ken Ham, as Ken Ham was not arguing science, but mythology as science. He should not have dignified his pseudoscience giving him a stage in a discussion of science. It's all been thoroughly examined by actual experts in the related fields of science, and found to be invalid, again, and again, and again.
No, I'm simply defending that I have a rational basis for what I believe, and explaining I find no conflict between science and faith. If that goal appeals to you, then I can offer my assistance helping you grapple with those question, but as far as I'm concerned, you can believe the earth was created by spacemen from another universe if you find that meaningful. I'll just say you are not allowed to say that it is a scientific truth, as that's not valid. You can't just say anything and think it's compatible with science, but you're certainly free to believe it if it makes you happy.
Yes, I do feel it, and you have in fact gone to some lengths to try to justify yourself misusing the Bible to do so, claiming we should judge our brothers and sisters. What I read, and what I feel, and what I believe, is that is an error and sin.
There is no judgement from God on me. It's only you does that.
If you feel that's necessary. And that's why I'm defending what I believe and offering the basis for it. Again though, I have no opinion that matters regarding the existence or non-existence of Jesus. I can tell that Richard Carrier's views are quite threatening to you, and hence why you chose invectives and rhetoric instead of substance in your rejection of him, calling him "lunatic fringe" and whatnot. To me, his ideas are intriguing, but pose no threat whatsoever to me, even if completely true. You feel threatened by him, I do not.
He is a scholar. That makes him have more authority than you, regardless of whether he believes in God or not. This is why you don't understand modernity or modern science. It's not based on personal religious beliefs. "Why should I believe Stephen Hawking about the Big Bang? He doesn't believe in God!". That's nonsense, and totally invalid.
Which proves why a modern scholar who does the work of modern scholar knows more than you who not only are not a scholar, but reject modern scholarship because they "don't believe". You are not qualified.
Last edited:
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Asking me "Why do you believe X?" or "How did you come to believe Y?" would be questioning. Asking, "Why are you anti-modern?" is more of an inquisition than honest questioning.
You seem threatened by my motives, the sincere love of and worship of Jesus Christ. I have good reason to trust Jesus and the Bible's many teachings. Reading the Bible reveals its piercing insight into my heart and the human condition.
**
What are you talking about here? The Big Bang singularity and all of modern cosmology harmonizes well with taking Genesis 1 as literal. I believe God inspires people like Stephen Hawking with great gifts, and I know Mr. Hawking has recently been attending church and contemplating/rethinking his stance.
I don't reject a very old universe circa 15+-Billion years. I do believe in a young Earth inside an old universe. I accept modern cosmology as accurate. I believe uniformitarian assumptions have mislead some geologists. The sentence above is some woe you've heard from some fundamentalist, but not me. I'm not sure you believe in the same God as I, but I believe you when you're being honest. I don't reject Stephen Hawking or any progressive thinker because of their theology. Recently, I quoted Christopher Hitchens in an academic paper I presented at an academic forum--because I thought he was right. He was a brilliant person. I read and contemplated some G.B. Shaw just yesterday. You must have had more than a few bad experiences if you feel all fundamentalists are closed minded. On the contrary, I find myself surrounded with so many deep thinkers I hope they have a pure faith as well!
I urge you to bridge your gap in understanding me, by asking Socratic questions and/or being kind, not assumptive. And instead of accusing me of being some kind of reactionary witch hunter! It's misleading on your part to the forum's many readers.
**
Here's something I think that will intrigue you.
**
IN DEFENSE OF THE FAITH
Was Paul Ignorant or Sarcastic?
Question: In Acts 23, Luke tells us that Paul was brought before a council of the leading rabbis. Paul calls the presiding priest a "whited wall." When he is rebuked for that, he apologizes and gives the excuse that he didn't realize that Ananias was the high priest. This reads like badly written fiction. Paul was supposedly an ex-rabbi. The high priest must have been wearing his robes and in charge of the proceedings. How then could Paul have been so stupid as not to know who the high priest was? Can you believe this scenario? And if not this, then how much else that Luke wrote?
Response: Once again this apparent flaw in the biblical record is in fact another convincing proof of its authenticity. The passage in question is found in Acts 23:1-5. Paul, who is a prisoner and allowed by Roman law to face his accusers, opens his defense to the rabbinic council, "I have lived in all good conscience before God unto this day."
Ananias, who is presiding over the proceedings as high priest, commands Paul to be struck on the mouth, presumably because he doesn't believe that anyone could always live in "good conscience before God." Paul, who knows the Jewish law and is far from being intimidated, retorts immediately, "God shall smite thee, thou whited wall, for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?"
Some of those standing around Paul exclaim in shock, "Revilest thou God's high priest?"
Paul then replies, "I wist not [didn't realize], brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people."
This is a most intriguing exchange. Yes, one might well wonder about it, but Luke simply presents the facts without explanation.
INSIGHT FROM JOSEPHUS
It becomes quite clear and all the more fascinating, however, upon reading Josephus. He tells us that Ananias had indeed been the high priest, but that he had been deposed. Subsequently his successor had been murdered and no replacement had been appointed for him. In the meantime, Ananias had stepped in and illegally usurped the office of high priest.
Knowing that background, the plot thickens. It is more than likely that under those conditions Ananias would not have been wearing the robes of the high priest, and so Paul could be excused for not recognizing him. Therefore, it is entirely possible that Paul, who had been absent from Jerusalem for some time, was simply unaware that Ananias was acting as high priest at this time.
Knowing how astute Paul was, however, it is highly possible that, having spent a few days in Jerusalem upon his return after a long absence, Paul knew the status of the high priestly office. Paul was therefore speaking from knowledge rather than from ignorance. More than likely, then, and in keeping with his character, this man who had "turned the world upside down" (Acts 17:6) was suing biting sarcasm to point out the uncomfortable fact that Ananias was not the legitimate high priest but a usurper and was thus without authority to sit in judgment upon him.
In any case, it should be obvious to any fair-minded person that this account could not have been written even decades, much less centuries, later, as the critics insist it was. It could only have been written by an eyewitness who was reporting accurately the proceedings and what Paul said. Moreover, this particular incident, far from discrediting Luke's testimony, was allowed of the Holy Spirit and recorded as one more unique and interesting proof of the authenticity of the New Testament record.
You seem threatened by my motives, the sincere love of and worship of Jesus Christ. I have good reason to trust Jesus and the Bible's many teachings. Reading the Bible reveals its piercing insight into my heart and the human condition.
**
What are you talking about here? The Big Bang singularity and all of modern cosmology harmonizes well with taking Genesis 1 as literal. I believe God inspires people like Stephen Hawking with great gifts, and I know Mr. Hawking has recently been attending church and contemplating/rethinking his stance.
I don't reject a very old universe circa 15+-Billion years. I do believe in a young Earth inside an old universe. I accept modern cosmology as accurate. I believe uniformitarian assumptions have mislead some geologists. The sentence above is some woe you've heard from some fundamentalist, but not me. I'm not sure you believe in the same God as I, but I believe you when you're being honest. I don't reject Stephen Hawking or any progressive thinker because of their theology. Recently, I quoted Christopher Hitchens in an academic paper I presented at an academic forum--because I thought he was right. He was a brilliant person. I read and contemplated some G.B. Shaw just yesterday. You must have had more than a few bad experiences if you feel all fundamentalists are closed minded. On the contrary, I find myself surrounded with so many deep thinkers I hope they have a pure faith as well!
I urge you to bridge your gap in understanding me, by asking Socratic questions and/or being kind, not assumptive. And instead of accusing me of being some kind of reactionary witch hunter! It's misleading on your part to the forum's many readers.
**
Here's something I think that will intrigue you.
**
IN DEFENSE OF THE FAITH
Was Paul Ignorant or Sarcastic?
Question: In Acts 23, Luke tells us that Paul was brought before a council of the leading rabbis. Paul calls the presiding priest a "whited wall." When he is rebuked for that, he apologizes and gives the excuse that he didn't realize that Ananias was the high priest. This reads like badly written fiction. Paul was supposedly an ex-rabbi. The high priest must have been wearing his robes and in charge of the proceedings. How then could Paul have been so stupid as not to know who the high priest was? Can you believe this scenario? And if not this, then how much else that Luke wrote?
Response: Once again this apparent flaw in the biblical record is in fact another convincing proof of its authenticity. The passage in question is found in Acts 23:1-5. Paul, who is a prisoner and allowed by Roman law to face his accusers, opens his defense to the rabbinic council, "I have lived in all good conscience before God unto this day."
Ananias, who is presiding over the proceedings as high priest, commands Paul to be struck on the mouth, presumably because he doesn't believe that anyone could always live in "good conscience before God." Paul, who knows the Jewish law and is far from being intimidated, retorts immediately, "God shall smite thee, thou whited wall, for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?"
Some of those standing around Paul exclaim in shock, "Revilest thou God's high priest?"
Paul then replies, "I wist not [didn't realize], brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people."
This is a most intriguing exchange. Yes, one might well wonder about it, but Luke simply presents the facts without explanation.
INSIGHT FROM JOSEPHUS
It becomes quite clear and all the more fascinating, however, upon reading Josephus. He tells us that Ananias had indeed been the high priest, but that he had been deposed. Subsequently his successor had been murdered and no replacement had been appointed for him. In the meantime, Ananias had stepped in and illegally usurped the office of high priest.
Knowing that background, the plot thickens. It is more than likely that under those conditions Ananias would not have been wearing the robes of the high priest, and so Paul could be excused for not recognizing him. Therefore, it is entirely possible that Paul, who had been absent from Jerusalem for some time, was simply unaware that Ananias was acting as high priest at this time.
Knowing how astute Paul was, however, it is highly possible that, having spent a few days in Jerusalem upon his return after a long absence, Paul knew the status of the high priestly office. Paul was therefore speaking from knowledge rather than from ignorance. More than likely, then, and in keeping with his character, this man who had "turned the world upside down" (Acts 17:6) was suing biting sarcasm to point out the uncomfortable fact that Ananias was not the legitimate high priest but a usurper and was thus without authority to sit in judgment upon him.
In any case, it should be obvious to any fair-minded person that this account could not have been written even decades, much less centuries, later, as the critics insist it was. It could only have been written by an eyewitness who was reporting accurately the proceedings and what Paul said. Moreover, this particular incident, far from discrediting Luke's testimony, was allowed of the Holy Spirit and recorded as one more unique and interesting proof of the authenticity of the New Testament record.
I'm actually not asking you why you are anti-modern. I believe I already know why. But if you'd like I will ask the question this way. Why is it you claim you are accepting of modernity, and even that you are a modernist yourself, while you reject things like the Theory of Evolution? That's like hearing a white supremacist in Oregon saying "I'm a pluralist and a multiculturalist", while espousing sending all non-whites back to their country of origin. That's a self-contradiction. The question from me to you is why do you claim to be a modernist when nothing you say seems to support that? On what basis, what justification do you use to say you accept modern science, while you reject one of the most strongly established and verified scientific theories out there?
To sit in judgement of another does not seem like the fruit one would expect if you were immersed in that love. Humility, grace, and non-judgment is what I would expect.
May it continue to do so for you. There is no end to our self-knowledge. When we think we have arrived, we are humbled to find out we've really still only been operating out of our egos. And judging others by your own standards, claiming that how we think about God, is God's truth itself. That's one of those piercing insights that we come to when we set aside what we think we know about God, and actually find God. When that happens, what you thought you saw in the Bible, was actually just a reflection of your own ego.
No, it actually doesn't. Your reading of Genesis 1 is colorized with a later ex-nihilo theology. In Genesis 1, the earth was preexisting. If you really want to attempt to make this fit with modern cosmology you'll be running into a considerable amount of contradictions:
- You have the earth existing before the sun and the moon. This is not possible, as the earth was formed because the sun's gravitational mass pulling all the cosmic dust bits together, like the dust-bunnies under your bed. Planets do not form without there being some form of massive gravitational force already there. The planets were not formed before the sun in our solar system, yet verse 3 exactly say that. This does not fit with modern cosmology.
- You have the Spirit as some sort of disembodied entity with physical dimensions "hovering" over the water. Do you really believe that? I do not. It's figurative language, at least that's the only way I could understand it rather than literally. A "sheet-like" ghost being does not fit with my understanding of God as omnipresent.
-Verse 6 you have water existing on the surface of the planet before there was an atmosphere! That is absolutely impossible. If you stipped off the atmosophere of this planet, all the water would vaporize into space. Furthermore, no water could possibly have collected and formed into any sort of bodies in the first place without an atmosphere. Do you see water on the moon? What you did have however on earth was water vapors along with hydrogen, methane, and carbon oxide gases that went into to creating the atmosphere. No seas, or lakes, or ponds, or puddles could have possibly existed until after that. And if so, how could the Spirit "hover over the waters" that could not have possibly been there? Furthermore, what the heck is this "dome" idea, and what water is above this "dome"?
-Verse 11. Plants and trees and all manner of vegetation are covering the earth before the sun was created. This is of course completely impossible and very clearly contradicts modern cosmology, botany, and so forth.
-Verse 14, You have you have the creation of stars for the purpose of "signs". You believe God created stars for us to make star charts? All of that, just for us?
Yet, that's what the verse is saying. Very clearly a purely anthropocentric cosmology here, and NOT modern cosmology by any stretch. Furthermore, you have the moon and the sun created on the fourth day, AFTER you have plants growing. Additionally, in modern cosmology, our own sun is in fact a star, and suns are still being created to this very day. They were not "created" on the fourth day! They are being birthed all the time everywhere in the cosmos. This Biblical account, if read as a scientific description of our origins is not in the least in accord with modern cosmology.Furthermore, the moon was created by a large body smashing into the earth and cleaving it out from it! ALL life, if it existed and that time would have been utterly vaporized! Any atmosphere would have be blown to hell! The earth as a planetary body was shattered into huge burning chunks of broken rock. It was not a pretty thing. The earth was reset back to zero at that moment. This is nonsense to say this account is compatible with modern cosmology!
Here. Watch this wonderful animation of what it would have looked like, starting at 1:10 seconds of the BBC video. Tell me honestly, does this square with what you read in Genesis?
-Verse 20, on the 5th day you have birds emerging at the same time as water creatures. Birds are land animals! Birds evolved from Dinosaurs. You have land animals appearing magically out of sequence with evolutionary biology. That is complete inaccurate as a scientific truth.
-Verse 24, if taken literally, all these creature spontaneously erupted out of nothing, and if so we would expect to find no genetic commonalities between them. But we do, and that is a contraction of spontaneous magical appearance on the geological time scale. This is absolutely, clearly not what modern science or cosmology teaches.
My question to you, is why do you claim the above passage from Genesis is compatible with modern cosmology and science, when in fact it most solidly and clearly is not? Why? Second question, even far more importantly, what would happen to your faith if you were forced to understand the Genesis account differently, in ways which did not require you to deny modern science? Would you lose your faith and become an atheist? Please be honest with me.
more later...... actually, no. I want you to address the above Genesis as science using a literal reading as you say I should debunking I just put together reading through it today before we continue. My question to you with the other questions I've highlighted, how do you deal with these scientific discoveries I have presented - without rejecting them as valid and still claiming to embrace modern science?
Last edited:
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I don’t denounce Evolution. Evolution is an established fact. New species arise fairly often.
Science includes much inductive reasoning and field observation. I see the same fossils and links as other persons, however I question certain assumptions regarding events of the distant past.
If you are a modernist, I would think you ascribe to Hegelian conflict between ideas as helpful in synthesizing new knowledge. If you want to know why I personally, as well as thousands of scientists worldwide, question certain assumptions, I’d be happy to discuss further—hoping we can come to conciliation if after a bit of thesis-antithesis conflict.
For example, it has struck me for some time that the hypothesis method, rather than rejecting a scientific principle, would rather assume it is true and then follow it to its logical ends. Therefore, since it is evident to us moderns that flora and fauna exchange gases, CO2 and Oxygen, and since all is in symbiosis worldwide among species with little current fluctuation (relative to the extinctions of the fossil record) I call to question how plants released oxygen into our atmosphere for approximately one billion years before there were animals to inhale the oxygen and convert it back to CO2 “worked”. The plants would be somewhat short on CO2 and there would be an overabundance of oxygen. In fact, I’ve seen some scientists calculate that there would be a worldwide conflagration of so much oxygen after 100,000 years, that is, the Earth would have been set afire 10,000 times over one billion years due to plants without animals.
Now, while I’m not a scientist, nor could I say that I’m conversant with all the latest research in this area, I can tell you that I’ve read a number of scientific papers attempting to reconcile this conflict with current timelines for past evolution, and found them unconvincing.
The incredible “symbiosphere” we live in—where scientists warn that only a few species in this world could disappear and all life would be at grave risk—is supposed to have remained in check while there were only plants and not animals for a billion years?
Likewise, the great extinctions of the past indicate they may be firm evidence of a Noahic, global flood. You probably realized that 99% of fossils we have today are marine life, and there are other indicators consistent with a global flood hypothesis.
You judged me in the past paragraph! “I'm actually not asking you why you are anti-modern. I believe I already know why.”
You would say, of course, that you weren’t judging me, you were exercising discernment. Jesus is my judge and yours, I don’t and cannot judge you, nor do I hold you in contempt, but my discernment informs me—and I’ve informed you—that I feel your doctrines are dangerous, and could lead to licentiousness and persons being lost—eternally.
Only the most horrible, callous man would avoid warning a neighbor of danger. I would be remiss if I didn’t tell you what I believe about your doctrines.
Yes, sir.
Yes, sir. However, I don’t judge your doctrine by my personal standards. I judge what you say by researching what the scriptures have to tell us both.
If you are pro-choice, I might be pro-choice, too, but I can easily research what the current POTUS says on the matter, and tell you that you have a different belief system than Donald J. Trump. However, this doesn’t mean I “judge” you or that I even disagree with you.
I empathize with what you wrote here, since I had a firm set of ideas as a Jew before trusting Jesus for salvation, and as an adult. I get it. I really do. I had to let go and let God in a massive, definite way.
But I would ask some questions:
1. Why do you see the Bible with heightened clarity but fundamentalists see it via their ego? And do you know how presumptuous and stereotyping that would sound to others, if true?
2. Are you not cognizant that I’ve previously stood in recognition of that line of thought (hey, get your ego cleared out of your Bible study, brother)?
3. Are you that unaware that the Bible condemns my failures even as it offers redemption? That it tends to pierce through what I want it to say to stand alone, unopposed, unashamed, indicating my many faults and how and where I can improve?
I would have “God created the . . . Earth” and you would have “God REcreated or REformed Earth”. I respectfully disagree. I don't subscribe to the Age Gap Theory nor do most theologians put eons of time between two verses early in Genesis. If you feel that God put in the age gap and reformed the Earth so that we can account for long period of Evolution, we could discuss that, of course.
I have a different view of this passage than you have chosen here. Likewise on some of the (respectfully I say this to you) canards I’ve heard about the rest of Genesis 1, before.
Whereas nearly 100% of cosmologists accept the Big Bang and reject a Steady State theory of the universe, I hope no one told you 100% of astronomers and cosmologists hold to a Moon/Earth collision theory.
First, we must together recognize that modern science doesn’t state anything re: Genesis 1 like “the Spirit is a disembodied, non-omnipresent entity” as you wrote above. Nor does science (as far as I've heard) support the theological Age Gap theory of Genesis 1. You are throwing in your hermeneutics and theology and asking how I dare dissent. I dissent, in part, because I don’t read some of Genesis the way you read it.
Second, when I see someone take issue with a literal Genesis 1, I tend not just to consider the Bible passage but also to look at the scientific papers, books and positions I can find to see what modern science has to say. Is it possible to harmonize science with a verse? Have I read the science incorrectly? Have I read the verse incorrectly?
Your question is difficult to answer for this reason—I cannot accept its premise. Please bear with me while I explain:
I do NOT deny modern (or ancient!) science. I ADORE science. I don’t know deny modern science and I would deny any cosmology, including that of born-again fundamentalists, that EVER asks me to DENY science.
So I cannot answer your question. Perhaps you will rephrase it so that I may answer.
Thanks for sharing the BBC video. Cool stuff!
Last edited:
So you as a non-scientist believe yourself qualified to question scientists? Because.... why? Is it because your particular reading of the Bible trumps scientists, as well as that of other Christians who disagree with you? "I read it, I believe it, that settles it"?
If you are willing to accept that we evolved from other species, and then wish to talk about what that means to Christian faith, then we can have that discussion. If you wish to deny that against the indisputable level of evidence from practically every field of science out there, than this is not a valid use of "thesis, antithesis, and synthesis." It's just denial, nothing more dignified. I will not engage in that debate as it bores the hell out of me. Let's talk something meaningful like what does it mean to faith to accept that it's true? That's all I care to discuss as the rest is settled in my mind based on trusting science when it comes to doing science.
Oh for goodness sake. That's not judging you!! I am simply recognizing why certain people who hold to certain beliefs have a hard to letting them go. How is that "judging" you? Were I to do that, it would be some demeaning insult such as saying God is going to send you to hell for believing the way you do - like you do to me. I'm not an idiot, nor is anyone else reading this thread. It's pretty obvious what you are doing here.
And you are dead wrong.
Cool. You'll find that what you believe now is also something you may need to jettison later on your path to God. Then, maybe, you won't judge others like me once you realize that a little more in yourself.
Again... putting words into my mouth I never spoke. Stop it.
Are you unaware the Bible teaches there is no condemnation to those in Christ?
Again, you are talking with someone that I don't know here. You assume my beliefs, and you are wrong.
I have no idea what you are talking about here.
I didn't choose it. I read it. Genesis 1:1-2 NIV: Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1 - New International Version
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
Even if there is some other explanation for the data we have, it still does not make the Genesis account accurate scientifically!
What credible evidence does?I never claimed science did. Why would I? Again, why are you insisting on putting words into my mouth? Does it make debating with me easier for you?
You are throwing imaginary bunny rabbits at an imaginary target. I've never claimed nor stated any of this. Why do you do this? Seriously, explain why you make stuff up like this and claim I said this? This is getting absurd. I'm going to stop here now. I'm actually not sure I'm going to care to continue if this is what you bring to the table. You're arguing with someone in your imagination, tilting at windmills. If I see any more of this in your next post, I'm done.
Last edited:
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Hello brothers and sisters
EDITED
I met today a Christian he said :" God could have created Adam (pbuh) and the other creatures using evolution."
I am not deny God created univers by steps,"6 days" but I am mention to creatures , and especially Adam(pbuh) and Eve (pbuh)
Then what is Bible said about creation of creatures ? does Bible support creation of creatures or support evolution of creatures ?
If you toss out Genesis, I guess you could leap to that conclusion
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Not “that settles it” as you wrote above but I have given you some examples above of why I doubt SOME aspects of the Theory of Evolution. Will you respond? I've read those papers and I've thoughtfully studied the plants-over-eons issue, for example, and from the science that is current. Have you done the same?
If by the above you are implying “I read science, I believe 100% of it, that settles it,” you are being overly credulous. In our lifetimes, science has varied by billions of years on the age of the Earth alone, for one example somewhat relevant to our discussion of science and the scriptures.
Also, I know of ZERO credible scientists who say of their field of study, “we’re done”. Again, you are being somewhere between naïve, overly credulous and mocking me (incorrectly) for the attitude you hold. I believe neither “the Bible says so it must be true” or “science says so the scientists must be perfect in their assessments”. I weigh evidence.
Further, I don’t appreciate your writing regarding the evidence offered “it’s just denial, nothing more dignified”. I maintain my dignity and my credibility while publicly debating the issues. And I raised an issue which you neglected to respond to, which is less than denial.
I didn’t say you’re headed for Hell. You have mentioned a salvation testimony of some kind, in your past. My concern is that your doctrine is picked up on by others reading here.
**
You would say, of course, that you weren’t judging me, you were exercising discernment. Jesus is my judge and yours, I don’t and cannot judge you, nor do I hold you in contempt, but my discernment informs me—and I’ve informed you—that I feel your doctrines are dangerous, and could lead to licentiousness and persons being lost—eternally.
The issue above is I’ve asked you many times to support your beliefs, as I’m ALWAYS open to learning new things about the Bible—I understand you feel modern science undercuts some literal beliefs held by fundamentalists today—but as for other doctrines of yours I’ve mostly gotten from you that I need to “be more open” spiritually. I remain open to praying about doctrines and to anything you want to share from the scriptures and/or reason, but your hermeneutics are lacking in the latter two IMHO.
**
Are you that unaware that the Bible condemns my failures even as it offers redemption?
Regarding the Mosaic Law, sure (Romans 8). Regarding my heart and mind, sure. But literally a fool (an immoral person) would read the Bible and think their morals and lifestyle are up to snuff. Therefore my gospel—you and I may be spiritual indeed, but without transformation—a transformation mortals cannot achieve without the divine—we’re lost.
By lost, I mean that since utopia is a place where we never harm one another, my behavior must become morally perfect. Some of the things I say upset and hurt you—well, I apologize, but thankfully in the future, I’d be disallowed from hurting you in Heaven due to a changed character.
I’m not ready for Heaven today. I’d mess the place up by my lacking in moral behavior and wisdom. But because of the cross, because I’ve trusted in Jesus, on that day He will offer me of His perfection and I will be changed. This is the gospel and my response to it.
**
First, we must together recognize that modern science doesn’t state anything re: Genesis 1 like “the Spirit is a disembodied, non-omnipresent entity” as you wrote above.
Pardon me, but you gave the Genesis quotation, and then said its depiction of the nature of God’s Spirit didn’t fit. Again, you gave some Genesis paraphrases I don’t believe, then said science knocks them down.
This action of yours was thus both a straw man argument (I believe Genesis differently so you were arguing against things I’ve not believed) and unscientific (science does not make pronouncements on God’s Spirit or God’s omnipresence).
**
Nor does science (as far as I've heard) support the theological Age Gap theory of Genesis 1. You are throwing in your hermeneutics and theology and asking how I dare dissent.
You may not be familiar with the age gap theory but you claimed in your prior post that things about the Earth that I don’t find in Genesis. I interpreted your statements as the age gap theory (but I’m not trying to be assumptive and I apologize if I offended you).
My guess is that since you didn’t interact with the scientific conundrums I posed above, rudely stating after I went to quite some effort, “I will not engage in that debate as it bores the hell out of me,” that you were being rhetorical only (“Look at these nine scientific disproof pieces for a literal Genesis” when you didn’t really want me to look at them!). If you want to pick one or two to discuss as gentlemen, rather than being rhetorical only, I can again endeavor to respond at length and with care to you.
I am insulted that you ignored my explanation of the perceived difficulties of a part of the Theory of Evolution—WHEN YOU ASKED ME. You are right in that we cannot continue this discussion as long as one of us answers questions and the other is dismissive. “I will not engage in that debate as it bores the hell out of me” seems dismissive to me. Ignoring several hundred words I composed carefully regarding one of the giant plot holes of modern evolutionary theory is dismissive, too.
I’d love to “bore” the Hell out of you and get a little more Heaven into our discussion, but I sense that you are coming to the end of your limited patience. I sincerely apologize. The gospel is offensive in its nature. I will continue to promote it, regardless.
Thank you.