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:
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You've been claiming Luke was an actual historian. You've not made that claim of the other Gospel writers. Are you wishing to make that claim?
First of all, that is not a logical conclusion derived from examining Luke's cribbing of Josephus. Paul actually does not include any history of Jesus' earthly life narratives you find in the other Gospels, so I'm not sure how saying Luke cribbed Josephus has any bearing on Paul. As far as some of the other NT writers, as you know modern scholars recognize many of those as later pseudepigraphal works, and not authentic letters of Paul, or actual 1st century writers. This is something I accept as credible and valid.
No, but those thinking that the events of their day were fulfillments of these things were likewise doing that little magic trick, which when examined critically doesn't stand up. Again, I see these "fulfilled prophecy" claims a certain cognitive slight-of-hand, whether it's you doing it, some other modern cult doing it, or even the authors of some of the NT books doing it.
But all that said, I do recognize it as a meaningful mythological construct for the valid purpose of inspiring faith for those operating at the mythic stage. It's just that that type of construct doesn't really hold well for those operating predominantly at the rational stage of faith development. (See Fowler's work). I can appreciate the "magic" fantasy element of it to inspire, but it's value is limited in the grander scheme of faith itself. You waste your time trying to inspire me claiming these are factual things. It has the opposite effect, and hence why many people simply choose to abandon faith when you insist upon these things.
This is clever, but in error. First, I make a strong distinction between beliefs and faith. My faith is not in my beliefs. Faith is rooted and grounded in my being itself. It is a spiritual knowledge, not an academic or cognitive construction. It has nothing to do with ideas and beliefs around those ideas. Therefore, my faith allows for my beliefs to change, while I remain rooted and grounded in God; in Spirit.
Regarding my beliefs, the things I examined cognitively using rationality, I would say mine have a far greater and more certain foundation. I have science to back it up with, as well as the tools of modern scholarship which are far more penetrating than just "trusting" the bible is right and dismissing all the rest, as is your approach.
Again, I'm not trying to convince you of these things, but simply explaining that there are in fact valid ways to think about and understand them being held without a violation of faith itself. You are not required to think about these things as I understand them in order to have a valid faith in God. Likewise, nor am I required to hold them as you do to be in fact very much rooted and grounded in God. All this is is me explaining the basis for the validity of other's faith that differ from how you construct and hold yours. You see faith and belief as inextricably fused together. I do not. To this point, you've not shown any acceptance of the validity of others' faith when it moves outside the limits of your comfort zone. That's what this is about. Try loosening your grip and little, and see what you can begin to see. It's quite marvelous.
Then why doesn't he cite any of his sources, for one thing? Josephus did, and Luke was not one of them.1. LUKE claims to have been an historian (Luke 1:1 and on).
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 DeuteroPaulinesAll has bearing on all in the NT, since:
1) Paul signed his letters in his hand
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.2) The odds are lean against multiple independent writers coming up with the same fabrications
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?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)
Yes, and I'll continue to as it's valid. I'll explain a little how that trick is done....You are repeating this line again.
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.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,
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.the Roman diaspora
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)., that Jews would be persecuted in each nation to where they fled,
Chapter and verse please? Let's examine the words you read and the meaning you put into it.and that they would return to Israel, recreating a Jewish state but with a secular, non-Christian emphasis.
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.Since all these prophecies are obviously true
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.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.”
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.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?
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.You have faith in Jesus but don’t believe in Him.
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.You read Jesus’s words for solace and inspiration but He didn’t author them or say them.
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.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.
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!The idea of uncoupling faith/trust from belief is not a biblical concept.
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.I do understand what you mean by overcoming doubts via faith and spiritual eyes,
No. I don't agree in the least.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?
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 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 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.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.
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.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.
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.That is, I think their motives were often (not always) good and they did not see themselves as adding to textual corruptions.
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.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.
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!
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.
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.You say I'm against the Spirit of Truth.
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?"I know the Spirit of Truth as the Holy Spirit who inspired the scriptures.
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!You are familiar with the Bible passages where the Spirit inspires the scriptures?
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!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.
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'd call that untruth unless they were pure amanuenses, something you (I think, you tend to equivocate most everything) deny.
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.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.
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.I've also noticed you respond with invective to simple, straightforward questions.
Rhetoric? I provide very specific and detailed answered, as well as links. And you call this rhetoric? That's rhetoric, right there.You also tend to push rhetoric rather than ask me questions.
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.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.
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.You'd like to me to be enlightened with some of the enlightenment you've received
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.Having said that, gotten it off my chest, so to speak, you feel I judge you.
There is no judgement from God on me. It's only you does that.If you've trusted Jesus as Savior, there's no judgment.
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.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.
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.I don't expect people who disbelieve the Bible to have more authority to teach it than I
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., just like I know about Judaism more than you. I was circumcised in my home on the 8th day after birth and so on. . .
"Why should I believe Stephen Hawking about the Big Bang? He doesn't believe in God!".
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?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.
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.You seem threatened by my motives, the sincere love of and worship of Jesus Christ.
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.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.
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:What are you talking about here? The Big Bang singularity and all of modern cosmology harmonizes well with taking Genesis 1 as literal.
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.
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.
Furthermore, the moon was created by a large body smashing into the earth and cleaving it out from it!
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.
you were forced to understand the Genesis account differently, in ways which did not require you to deny modern science
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"?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 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.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.
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.You judged me in the past paragraph! “I'm actually not asking you why you are anti-modern. I believe I already know why.”
And you are dead wrong.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.
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.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.
Again... putting words into my mouth I never spoke. Stop it.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?
Are you unaware the Bible teaches there is no condemnation to those in Christ?3. Are you that unaware that the Bible condemns my failures even as it offers redemption?
Again, you are talking with someone that I don't know here. You assume my beliefs, and you are wrong.I would have “God created the . . . Earth” and you would have “God REcreated or REformed Earth”.
I have no idea what you are talking about here.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.
I didn't choose it. I read it. Genesis 1:1-2 NIV: Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1 - New International VersionI have a different view of this passage than you have chosen here.
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?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.
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?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.
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.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.
Hello brothers and sisters
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 ?
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.
Are you unaware the Bible teaches there is no condemnation to those in Christ?
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.