Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who Made God?
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


(1)
Message 215 of 868 (826606)
01-05-2018 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Phat
01-04-2018 8:01 AM


Re: I CANT but He CAN
quote:
Some of us believe(though do not know nor can prove) that Christianity is a revealed religion. Granted, my ideas on Spiritual impartation,special knowledge, and wisdom that is not understood by the learned minds of today borders on a fusion with gnostic thought,but in regards to I CANT, keep in mind that he is probably more traditional evangelical...similar to Faith, though I commend and applaud Pastor I CANT for even taking the time to comment and participate here at our forum...to the limited degree that he does.
I have known people that say they (or he/she/it) know what the Christian God taught, simply by the "Holy Spirit" talking to them, and they actually are fairly critical of the Bible, since it is simply a man-made work. There will be lots of reading of scientific works, then a complete rejection of the man-made system.
I like the skepticism, but there tends to become a bit of a radical rejection of almost everything.
quote:
He likely spends most of his time preaching and discussing Christianity in a far more Biblical Inerrant sense than what we do here...which of course jar laughs at.(jar is unimpressed with Biblical Christianity) Larmark, what you will find around here at EvC is that it is not easy to get a conversation going with many members. We too are creatures of the flesh and of matter as opposed to the spiritual plane of ideas which you seek to google and conceptualize. We often like to talk and teach rather than discuss and listen.
It is what it is.
quote:
I consider God to be Spirit rather than matter...hence no material need even be used in defining Him. Thus logically, the only conclusive element that could conceivably be of His eternal preexistent makeup would have to be Spirit rather than matter, whether dark matter or regular matter.
But, where did "he" come from? He might have been something else on a universe where he arose. And the whole issue of an "eternal" something (whether God or Universe) is quite confusing.
Roger Penrose (co-author of the famous Stephen Hawking book from the 1970s) says that our Universe is simply an ongoing recycling (naturally occurring) operation, with the previous one destroyed. He says the same thing will keep on happening.
But, he says the (endlessly recycled) Universe is unlimited in age from both the future AND PAST directions. "Unlimited in both directions". Unlimited in the past!
I simply can't grasp this "unlimited" concept.
Remember how Fred Hoyle said that our Universe was of unlimited age with no beginning and no end? He even said that Hydrogen and Helium were always present. His Steady State theory, in hindsight, now looks like a straw man punching bag just waiting to be knocked to pieces BUT IT WAS A VIEW THAT HAD THE MOST POPULAR SUPPORT AMONG LAYPEOPLE. Additionally, similar (unlimited eternal Universe) views held a plurality among the scientific community until about 1949, then till 1965 it was about as strong among scientists as the Big Bang.
The closest I can come to this "eternal God" or "eternal Universe" concept is if one the (very likely)considers total complete NOTHINGNESS stage to be part of the "age" (if one can even call it that) of what sprung up later (whether the Universe or God ).
quote:
I don't quite understand (nor likely believe) in what Plato describes as an eternal archetype.
Perhaps what Plato meant is that the father of all things is the God of our imaginations and the eternal archetype is GOD Himself.
Plato is interesting, though he might have contributed to the near total complete destruction of ancient scientific works.
Plato seems to have hated science (he might even have advocated book burning of scientific works, and that included the amazing Democritus of the Ionian Island Abdera)
See this link for Sagan talking about these issues of ancient Ionian science, and scroll down to chapter 7.
quote:
CHAPTER VII
The Backbone of Night
They came to a round hole in the sky . . . glowing like fire. This, the Raven said,
was a star.
- Eskimo creation myth
I would rather understand one cause than be King of Persia.
- Democritus of Abdera
Full text of "COSMOS - CARL SAGAN"
Plato was influential.
Neo Platonism is considered a major strain of "Gnostic" theology (or Cosmology).
He seems clearly to have influenced early Christians.
The very LOGOS was not from his musings, but this Greek philosophical "thing" clearly captured the early Christian imagination. It is part of evangelical Christianity today, and the Gnostics weren't any less accepting of it, in fact far more so.
quote:
it touches on what the argument is about over at our thread The Science Of Miracles. Some believe that human wisdom is the origin of all philosophy and premise on all topics. Others believe that the universe itself is created by God and thus qualifies itself as a miracle...the original miracle, of course, being creation itself.
The very existence of anything, is a miracle.
God or no God, the fact that there is anything but an ABSOLUTE NOTHINGNESS is miraculous.
Let us be very humble about the enormity of the very existence of anything period.
Let us consider all conscious life an even greater miracle.
Let us see every individual sentient creature to be both a miracle and something very short lived and precious (in every sense of the word). Biological life, especially to the point of existing, is a miracle (sort of) almost on par with the existence of any universe or space or element. The only thing making it less of a miracle is that it at least had the great advantage of being in a place where its very elements EXISTED at least, while the issue of space and matter existing AT ALL is (seemingly) simply impossible to understand (it seems just impossible for anything to logically exist at all, though we can comprehend NOTHING ever existing "everywhere").
The fact that we can't comprehend an eternally existing anything (any and all attempts to grasp such have failed totally and so much so that we take for granted the continual failure) should make us all very humble.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Phat, posted 01-04-2018 8:01 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 216 of 868 (826607)
01-05-2018 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by ICANT
01-04-2018 12:43 PM


Re: The Soma ("body" of Christ in the Greek) a soul of God (and the matter of universe?)
Please explain your sentences.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by ICANT, posted 01-04-2018 12:43 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by ICANT, posted 01-05-2018 6:02 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 220 of 868 (826644)
01-06-2018 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by ICANT
01-05-2018 8:08 PM


Jonathan Sarfati, of AIG, accepts General Relitivity (and AIG itself).
ICANT SAID:
quote:
But the theory of general relativity is what says there is no data prior to T=10-43 s, not me.
Now, I have a revised "Answers Book" of AIG (from around 2000 and it had multiple authors credited as the main author) and I was about to type a half page or so into this thread. I was happy to see that the EXACT text I was about to type is online. It seems that Sarfati was the original author.
It is interesting because it will show us that even AIG doesn't seem to see God as a supreme being in anything but our own universe.
Pay close attention
quote:
A number of skeptics ask this question. But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question ‘Who created God?’ is illogical, just like ‘To whom is the bachelor married?’
So a more sophisticated questioner might ask: ‘If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn’t God need a cause? And if God doesn’t need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?’ In reply, Christians should use the following reasoning:
1.Everything which has a beginning has a cause.1
2.The universe has a beginning.
3.Therefore the universe has a cause.
It’s important to stress the words in bold type. The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn’t need a cause. In addition, Einstein’s general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space. Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in timeGod is ‘the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity’ (Is. 57:15). Therefore He doesn’t have a cause.
In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.
1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.
If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energythe ‘heat death’ of the universe. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible. So the obvious corollary is that the universe began a finite time ago with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down.
Now, what if the questioner accepts that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause? But it is self-evident that things that begin have a causeno-one really denies it in his heart. All science and history would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied. So would all law enforcement, if the police didn’t think they needed to find a cause for a stabbed body or a burgled house. Also, the universe cannot be self-causednothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity
In Summary
The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.
It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.
The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach.
God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn’t need a cause.
If God created the universe then who created God - creation.com
Notice this part.
"Einstein’s general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space. Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in timeGod is ‘the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity’ (Is. 57:15). Therefore He doesn’t have a cause."
God is described as outside "time" as in the "space time" in our Universe.
God could very well be limited in his creation. Only OUR universe could be his creation.
Sarfati might not accept the Big Bang, but we know that roughly 34,999/35,000 of our Universe's 13.7 billion year age is observable through telescopes - all the way back to the young age of 380,000 years after the theorized Big Bang. Assuming the first 380,000 years (the only part of the 35,000 parts of roughly 400,000 years that cant be observed via telescopes) cranks back to a period of NO SPACE, then we have the period of the creation event, and the invention of time.
Sarfati says that God always existed.
But he sidesteps where God came from, and choose to only look at the space (time) creation in our Universe.
He no doubt believes in an eternal God.
Back to my earlier quote (I fixed the errors in the quote from my original post)
quote:
The closest I can come to this "eternal God" or "eternal Universe" concept is if one considers the (very likely) total complete NOTHINGNESS stage to be part of the "age" (if one can even call it that) of what sprung up later (whether the Universe or God ).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by ICANT, posted 01-05-2018 8:08 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Phat, posted 01-06-2018 7:05 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 221 of 868 (826645)
01-06-2018 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by ICANT
01-05-2018 6:02 PM


Re: The Soma ("body" of Christ in the Greek) a soul of God (and the matter of universe?)
quote:
He does not believe in what the original text says just a version of it that he has been taught by his peers.
Explain this please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by ICANT, posted 01-05-2018 6:02 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by ICANT, posted 01-06-2018 8:40 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 228 of 868 (826673)
01-06-2018 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by NoNukes
01-06-2018 5:54 AM


Re: The Soma ("body" of Christ in the Greek) a soul of God (and the matter of universe?)
quote:
Yes, I have heard that said. But that bromide turns out to be wrong. There are stupid questions.
Many questions are not true requests for information but are instead thinly veiled attempts to state some position despite having a question mark at the end. The implied statements in those questions may well be stupid. Those are not the kinds of questions your school teacher was talking about, but they are the kind of questions ICANT asks very frequently.
I think he is asking for a description of the various theories on "what came before the Bang".
You seem to think that he is "just trying to score points".
He just wants an outline of the current theories then a survey of the evidence.
(I might have been a bit better in the past, but I am not sure I can do a good enough job presently)
He will have his position on the issue, which is his right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by NoNukes, posted 01-06-2018 5:54 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 229 of 868 (826674)
01-06-2018 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Phat
01-06-2018 7:05 AM


Re: Jonathan Sarfati, of AIG, accepts General Relitivity (and AIG itself).
quote:
I still don't understand how anyone can accept such a concept as a nothingness phase.
Is it not obvious that if at any given point there was nothing...then at any future point there simply must be nothing? Otherwise what you are implying is that something was created.
Then is it obvious that there was something?
(What? Is it space? Empty space I presume? Or is it matter? What matter?)
What are the options?
You do know that we are talking about something existing eternally in the PAST, right?
quote:
Of course, if an unbeliever conceives of nothing (in the form of No God) and then later becomes a believer, the belief itself becomes the creation. Nothing becomes something. I reject this theory, however, because God is more than a subset of the human mind.
I'm talking about any anything existing eternally.
The ability to conceive of something existing eternally is easily understandable if one takes for granted that something was always here (while always sidestepping any sort of explanation for HOW even if there is a defined WHAT), and then it is a matter of saying that "the existing matter will always be here in some form".
But I can't remember any genuine explanations that really went after the real issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Phat, posted 01-06-2018 7:05 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by ICANT, posted 01-06-2018 9:20 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 231 of 868 (826679)
01-06-2018 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by jar
01-06-2018 7:35 AM


Re: Not obvious and also irrelevant
jar said:
quote:
quote:
Phat said:
"Is it not obvious that if at any given point there was nothing...then at any future point there simply must be nothing?"
No, it is not obvious.
I remember that when I was 7 years old, I wondered how on Earth the universe could have ever had life (yes I very much knew of religion, yes I very much did, but I was somehow able to separate scientific questions and theological beliefs, it now seems amazing that I could compartmentalize the way I seemingly "naturally" did).
I didn't understand that a universe itself would also be exceedingly unlikely, as space itself is ALSO a miracle. The more I learn about the issues, the more unlikely it seems. I NOW think that the existence of space itself is way more unlikely than anything biological existing, because the biological matter, again, had the great advantage of existing on a universe that already had matter.
I took space for granted as something that "always existed", I didn't know any better.
I took the universe "always existing" for granted.
Otherwise, I was remarkably non-anthropocentric.
(remove the fact that space and matter are fully present, obvious, and 100% tangible realities, then we still must ask why or how anything could physically come about)
The fact is that no scientist can explain how any force could even exist - to start with - so as to create space.
jar said:
quote:
AbE: It is also irrelevant. The issue is related to two things in this thread, "Who made God" and the offtrack rabbit hole of "What did the Universe come from?"
Remember how I, just now, said "we still must ask why or how anything could physically come about"?
The issue is totally related to theoretical spiritual beings, especially a creator of our universe.
The motivation for the question is that creationists (like Sarfati) feel that a God existing for 6000 years (plus some amount of time before the creation) can be the be all and end all answer to questions of origins.
There is even audacity thrown in ("This makes God 'eternal' since he existed before the beginning of our known universe").
We have every right to ask "Then, where did God come from? ", because there is a creationist attack that goes something like, "you can't have a creation without a creator", and we are all supposed to think that modern-science based astronomical works are a joke, because they propose something (the forces of nature then the resulting universe) to have come from out of nowhere, when the creationist "solution" is just waiting there for us to find so we can see that "all tough questions are actually - very easily - answered".
quote:
There is lots of evidence that humans made God but not much evidence yet on the latter question but pretty overwhelming evidence that this universe did have a beginning and that it has changed and evolved over time.
But while the first question is relevant to this topic the latter question is simply irrelevant.
The way you try to limit the discussion to our known universe is as anthropocentric as creationists like Sarfati manage to limit the discussion.
This question transcends our known universe.
True, it is a monumental wish to hope for an understanding of how exactly our universe came to be, but don't assume that a particle (like the inflaton) or a force (like Dark Matter) being fully understood as it applies to our universe, somehow means that our (once 13.7-13.8 billion years ago)non-space becoming a universe explains EVERYTHING there really is.
Infact, Guth says that a multiverse is difficult to avoid with an "inflaton" particle.
Listen to him say it here
Detecting the 'Bang' from the Big Bang - Science Friday
Listen to Roger Penrose say that our Big Bang was nothing more than an event that happened endlessly. Our universe is "eternal" and it just recycles itself. Unlimited existence "in both directions"
Roger Penrose: Cosmic Inflation Is 'Fantasy' - Science Friday
The scientific material universe questions meet with the spiritual since both attempt to answer the same questions.
But we must ask a question without the goal posts being set up in an unfair "double standard" type of way.
God would have needed to come from somewhere too because to say "He was just there, sounds to me like pantheism" (on another universe or perhaps a spiritual plane).
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by jar, posted 01-06-2018 7:35 AM jar has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 233 of 868 (826683)
01-07-2018 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by ICANT
01-06-2018 9:20 PM


Re: Jonathan Sarfati, of AIG, accepts General Relitivity (and AIG itself).
ICANT
I was working about 12 hours today, and still have 5 to go it seems.
My response to your last several posts (going back around to post 220 or so) will need to happen later.
One BIG issue though.
You said:
quote:
The only way to solve the nothingness problem is to have an eternal source of power which God is.
God would have needed to come from somewhere too because to say "He was just there", sounds to me like pantheism (on another universe or perhaps a spiritual plane).
You seem to want to look at this universe alone.
It sounds like you see this universe as the only thing that ever could have existed space wise (meaning that there were never any universes in any other "space" AND NOTE that "space" would seemingly have to start out as non-space then become space).
It almost sound like you believe in a spiritual pantheism type of FIRST CAUSE to the spirit world.
There was this eternal entity that just was always there?
Sounds like he came from nothing or you think whatever existed somehow became him or what?
Sounds like what you attack. Listen to yourself.
quote:
Since there was no existence prior to the Planck epoch, anything that existed at the Planck epoch had to begin to exist from an absence of existence. That would mean everything we see came from nothing which is a scientific impossibility.
quote:
You won't find a scientific answer as to what the very first existence was. There is no scientific data to even support a guess. Everybody wants to require a cause for the existence of God which is the topic of this thread, but none of my foes here wants to hear it if I require a cause for the existence of the universe.
I have a cause for the existence of the universe. The eternal all powerful God created it.
You say that God created all the forces to make all that we see?
But you don't say where God came from!
So your solution is a non-solution.
Based on what little you drop, you (and every other creationist I have heard) are really describing a belief in a type of "collective soul of the universe" always-existing type of RULE MAKER for the forces we see. You have a spiritual pantheism thing going, and don't know it.
You "He was always here" is little more than some sort of collective self-organizing force that came about in some unspecified way.
Your clues are the "always" and "eternal" parts you drop to describe this God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by ICANT, posted 01-06-2018 9:20 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Phat, posted 01-07-2018 2:58 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied
 Message 243 by ICANT, posted 01-07-2018 5:04 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 244 of 868 (826707)
01-08-2018 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by ICANT
01-07-2018 5:04 PM


Re: Eternal power (energy)
Scripture issues.
quote:
The Hebrew word היה Which is 1ps translated I AM means to be, become, exist...
God in that verse as He talked with Moses claimed to be I EXIST THAT I EXIST.
That is where He came from. If something created Him then that whatever it was would be God.
Yahweh actually can only really mean I AM or I WILL BE.
NOT IN PAST (probably not though Hebrew is tricky with tenses as there are none in the Bible, mostly)
Your comment fits in with Gnostic Demiurge theology.
But on to Colossians 1:17-19
You quoted from part of it and said this:
quote:
No, I say that God created all that there is. He even made all the laws that governs the universe. In fact He is the energy that holds it all together according to His claims.
The text.
quote:
17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,
Here is an evangelical commentary.
The Greek font isn't working
body is "soma" (used in text without definition in a few places)
"pleroma" is fullness
"arche" is beginning
quote:
Interpreter's Bible
Volume 11
p.169
The head of the body: This phrase is not found in earlier Pauline letters. Paul does indeed employ the analogy of the body (Rom. 12:5; and especially I Cor. 12:12ff.) in relation to the church, but it is to illustrate the diversity of functions in a single organism;
....
Here in Colossians, however, he thinks not of the several members with their variety of functions and dignities, but of the organism as a whole, deriving its vital powers from the head. To us the idea of the head suggests primarily the powers of intelligence and will - the figure prompts us to think of Christ as the mind which directs and the will which governs all the life of the church; but this would probably not fully represent the thought of the apostle. For him Christ as the head is the unifying principle and the source of life, not only guiding and governing but also vivifying (see also on 2:19).
The term body () as used here is not an independent development of the analogy that Paul had used in I Corinthians, but a new approach to the whole concept of the church. In all probability the apostle takes over in a technical term of the Colossian "philosophy," as he certainly does with ("fullness") in the next verse. We cannot tell precisely how the Colossian Gnostics used in the framework of their cosmic theory; whatever it meant to them, Paul affirms that it is realized in the church. ....
....
It remains a question whether by "the church" in this context he means the empirical institution, the visible society which exists within time and history; or whether he is thinking in transcendental terms, as of an eternal, heavenly "body," which would include ideally not only the redeemed from among mankind, but all "in heaven and in earth" that is or shall be subject to God
....
The second predicate ...[arche in Greek font] - beginning, is closely related in thought to the first. In Hebrew and other Semitic languages the words for "head" and for "beginning" have the same root...
Greek font issues messed up several words below
ton holon is OF ALL
ta panta is ALL
STOICHEIA means "elements"
TES THEOTETOS is "of the Godhead" or "of deity"
quote:
Interpreter's Bible
Volume 11
p.171
The word pleorma is undoubtedly a technical term of the Colossian "philosophy"; it is one of the key words in all the Gnostic systems.
....
In the Hermetic writings pleroma is used of God in a context of pantheistic immanence; he is "the Lord and Maker of all [ὸ ὅ] being both All [ ὰ ] and One, ... for the Pleroma of all things is One and in One" (Corpus Hermeticum XVI.3). The sense here is certainly not active ("that which fills all things"), but passive ("the totality of things"). In the great Gnostic schools of the second century the pleroma is the whole body of emanations. It would seem that the Colossian teachers used it of the whole array of the , the "elemental spirits of the cosmos," and imagined the various attributes of God to be distributed among them; or they may have conceived the as the attributes themselves, hypostatically existent. It is scarcely worth while to inquire into the particulars of such a fanciful system.
Taking the term ready-framed from the current philosophy of religion, Paul nowhere explains the sense which it holds for him. In some degree, then, he must assume that it has a fairly well-defined theological content which his readers will at once appreciate. In 2:9 he adds to it the phrase ῆ - all the pleroma "of the Godhead," or "of deity"; and the same phrase is to be understood in this first occurrence. He rejects the doctrine that the powers of divinity are distributed among a throng of mediating spirits of any kind - "thrones, dominions, principalities, powers"; and claims for Christ that the entire complement, "the aggregate of the Dive attributes, virtues, energies" (Lightfoot), resides in him alone. We find ourselves here moving in a world of ideas that is utterly strange to us, in which we can never feel entirely at home: but we can at least recognize the conclusion: that "God was in Christ," not in a limited or partial manifestation (that might be claimed of the great teachers of mankind), but in his plentitude.
Back to you Yahweh tense issue in Hebrew grammar.
It actually backs up the Gnostic theology.
quote:
The American Religion
Harold Bloom
p.50
the Gnostic myth: a vast cosmological emptiness, the nenoma, where we wander and weep, tyrannized by the Archons, who are lords of misrule, headed by the Demiurge, a deity who created the cosmos, ...in one blundering act that was also a Fall. An act of creation that in itself constituted a catastrophic fall ... Sun and earth, Adam and Eve, all began as a disaster in some versions of Gnostic myth, which has nothing good to say about nature...no hope for anything confined within the limits of space and time. Yet Gnosticism, if we are to consider it a religion, or at least a spiritual stance, is anything but nihilistic or hopeless, which may be why it is now, and always has been, the hidden religion of the United States, the American Religion proper.
....
p.51
Gnosticism takes its origins in a strong reaction against or creative misreading of an overwhelming precursor, the Hebrew Bible. The arch villain for the Gnostics was the Demiurge, a creator god whose name parodied the Demiurge of Plato's Timaeus, where he is portrayed as an artisan, "world-maker," who does the best he can at imitating the true Forms of Eternity. But for the Gnostics, the Demiurge is Yahweh (and Elohim), the Hebraic vision of the creator god in Genesis, a god taken by the Gnostics to be at best a botcher or ignoramus, or at worst a spirit of malevolence. The high god of the Hebrews is not the alien or true God of the Gnostics, who indeed was identified by many Gnostics with the primordial Abyss, the void and deep from which the Hebrew god or Demiurge stole or displaced the stuff for his false creation.
p.57
Fundamentalists, as unwitting Gnostics, do not believe anyway that God made them. Their deepest knowledge is that they were no part of the Creation, but existed as spirits before it, and so are as old as God himself. To be told that they evolved from a common ancestor both of themselves and of apes is no better or worse for them than to be assured that they all descended from a single African woman. What wounds them unforgivingly is not the idea of evolution (in whatever version) but the demonstration that they were never God, or part of God. Their sense of freedom depends ultimately upon being free not only of time and of nature but, more secretively,, being free of the very Creationism they urge upon the rest of us.
Yahweh, according to Hebrew grammar, backs this cosmology up!
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by ICANT, posted 01-07-2018 5:04 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by ICANT, posted 01-09-2018 12:03 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 277 of 868 (826802)
01-10-2018 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by ICANT
01-09-2018 12:03 AM


Re: Eternal power (energy)
ICANT, I have been pretty busy lately. My only time seems to be on the scripture issues (which is for the better, since the scientific stuff is over most of our heads), and I was in a hurry in my last post.
I will try to respond quickly.
I said:
quote:
Yahweh actually can only really mean I AM or I WILL BE.
NOT IN PAST (probably not though Hebrew is tricky with tenses as there are none in the Bible, mostly)
You responded:
quote:
I don't know where you come from with the I AM other than from the translation of the KJV or one of the other versions.
You sure did not get it from the definition of , which is 1.to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out.
You are right about Biblical Hebrew tenses. They don't exist period, there is no mostly to it.
Verbs are either perfect, completed action or imperfect, ongoing action.
I suspect the font won't work, but your above post had the Hebrew HYH which essentially means he is or he was (the infinitive "to be" isn't the actual form that is shown in the lexicons, which always have the third person qal perfect masculine singular BUT THE DEFINITION ALWAYS GIVES THE INFINITIVE)
The translation for ehyeh (or 'HYH) is totally related to the translation for YHWH. (Exodus 3:14 ehyeh asher ehyeh and Exodus 6:3 YHWH).
Exodus 3:14 in the King James.
quote:
And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you
This is the first person use (by God!) of the IMPERFECT for HYH.
Then the Exodus 6:3 YHWH use
quote:
And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them
This is the third person IMPERFECT which means HE IS or HE WILL BE
Now, what about the imperfect use of the perfect HYH?
Here is what a very conservative scholar and leading Hebrew linguist has to say.
quote:
The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries (Book 2)
Exodus 1-18
William H.C. Propp
Yale University Press (October 5, 1999)
p.204
The imperfect of hyh always refers to the future.
(And it is not a settled issue that Biblical Hebrew lacks straight out tenses.)
See this Wikipedia link
I Am that I Am - Wikipedia
You then quoted my comment about the Hebrew grammar showing that God was not eternal in THE PAST.
quote:
Yahweh, according to Hebrew grammar, backs this cosmology up!
You said:
quote:
I don't know what you draw that conclusion from.
Could you give me the Hebrew text that supports your conclusion?
The YHWH word (see above).
NEXT ISSUE
NOW PAUL'S WORDS
quote:
The meaning of 'soma' is: 1.the body both of men or animals.
So in the text body would be referring to the people who made up the church.
'pleroma' means 1.that which is (has been) filled
'arche' means: 1.beginning, origin
So what is all that about and where did it come from?
But, surely, you know that "Paul" (assuming that he wrote this book) uses technical terms.
Pleroma means a collective soul ( the Gnostics used it to refer to eminations of the Demiurge).
Scholars (like the one I quoted) used to think Gnosis existed in the first century and saw Paul responding to views that are documented in the later in the second century. Now it seems that he was responding to regular Christians.
Pleroma means this according to ancient sources.
quote:
the Lord and Maker of all (ton Holon) being both All (ta panta ) and One, ... for the Pleroma of all things is One and in One
Go to Google
TA PANTA
TON HOLON
PLEROMA
STOICHEIA
(you made an issue of the word
quote:
I don't care to discuss someone else's commentary but I would discuss your commentary.
This commentary did not rule out Paul holding a collective soul type of belief.
See the above quotes.
My comments?
Paul simply took the collective soul views that the Christians had and then made CHRIST the combined part of it all.
You then said:
quote:
σϋνίστήμι
This is the Greek word that is translated consist in Col. 1:17.
The word means: 1.to place together, to set in the same place,to bring or band together. I don't know where you got your translation from.
If you click the circle beside the peek button you can see how I made the Greek letters appear in the post instead of a mess. They will not copy and paste, neither will Hebrew. HTML code is required.
I got the word PLEROMA from verse 19
(here is part of my quote, from the evangelical commentary, which my words in place of the Greek font)
quote:
The term body (SOMA) as used here is not an independent development of the analogy that Paul had used in I Corinthians, but a new approach to the whole concept of the church. In all probability the apostle takes over in a technical term of the Colossian "philosophy," as he certainly does with PLEROMA ("fullness") in the next verse. We cannot tell precisely how the Colossian Gnostics used SOMA in the framework of their cosmic theory; whatever it meant to them, Paul affirms that it is realized in the church. ....
quote:
1:17
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
1:18
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
1:19
For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
1:19 is the collective soul part.
And this PLEROMA is the same term used in 2:9, which is used to twist Paul into sayings that (also in 2:9-10) TES THEOTETOS ( "of the Godhead" or "of deity") somehow is a pro-Trinitarian verse.
It is not pro Trinitarian!
It is using the collective soul to connect God to (well?) the collective soul.
Paul did not teach that the God YHWH (and the "Demiurge" was just a Christian use that took a Greek name for what was otherwise YHWH, though Plato's name for God would have been seen as evil by the same Gnostic Christians and infact the same God just like Theos was seen as YHWH) was evil.
But later Gnostics and Marcion did.
But Paul also has had his views twisted, and it is due to ignorance of the Greek words. Paul meant PLEROMA just as it was used then. There is no evidence he modified it, but he simply was making a point about Christ being the sum total of the whole, and a manifestation of the whole.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by ICANT, posted 01-09-2018 12:03 AM ICANT has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


(1)
Message 322 of 868 (826906)
01-13-2018 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 319 by ICANT
01-13-2018 5:55 PM


Re: So What If God DID It?
quote:
Around the 1620's AD William Harvey discovered the life of the flesh was in the blood and was circulated by the heart. He published his "de Motu Cordis" in 1628.
President George Washington was sick and was bleed of 82 ounces of blood 32 ounces of that being at the last bleeding sometime after 12 PM and died between 10 and 11 PM from the treatment.
So he was assassinated slowly by doctors ignorance.
Had science known what we know today he would have lived to a ripe old age in his retirement. But science at that time believed that you had to bleed the illness out of people.
Had some scientist read and understood the Bible all those lives that were lost by bleeding people when they got sick may have been saved. Moses wrote over 2500 years ago:
quote:
Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
This issue of life in the blood has to do with animals being allowed to be eaten by men after the flood.
It has to do with sacrifices (or so the excuse goes)
It was a way of respecting life (not spilling blood in the typical sense) as the means of the sacrifice.
Genesis 9:4 But you must not eat meat with its lifeblood still in it.
There is no issue of the loss of blood causing death & fatality BEING UNKNOWN in the ancient world.
It was known to represent a vital life force.
quote:
All ancient nations hinged their beliefs about hema (blood) on their religious dogmas as related to mythology or the origins of religion. The Hellenes (Greeks) especially have always known hema as the well-known red fluid of the human body. Greek scientific considerations about blood date from Homeric times. The ancient Greeks considered hema as synonymous with life. In Greek myths and historical works, one finds the first references to the uninterrupted vascular circulation of blood, the differences between venous and arterial blood, and the bone marrow as the site of blood production. The Greeks also speculated about mechanisms of blood coagulation and the use of blood transfusion to save life.
The Beliefs, Myths, and Reality Surrounding the Word Hema (Blood) from Homer to the Present
This is a long and detailed article that also covers Middle Eastern beliefs.
Put this into google or search engines.
"ancient texts blood being spilled"
This is a pointless apologetic claim.
The fact that sacrifice isn't performed anymore might not be an excuse for not knowing about blood sacrifices and the underling logic.
(How people that call themselves Christian can be so ignorant about sacrifice (think Jesus!) always amazes me, except for my awareness of the total complete brainwashing that is always going on)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by ICANT, posted 01-13-2018 5:55 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by ICANT, posted 01-14-2018 10:46 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 323 of 868 (826907)
01-14-2018 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by ICANT
01-12-2018 2:04 AM


Re: Eternal power (energy)
quote:
The option I actually believe and have stated numerous times on this site.
4. The universe has always existed in some form just not in the form it is today. Somewhere in eternity past (I will let you guys guess the numbers) The all powerful eternal God I serve created the heavens and the earth in 1 light period (day as described by God Genesis 1:5). God spoke and the events you talk about taking place
happened, There was much preparation needed for the earth to be ready to be inhabited by mankind.
So did God come after the Universe?
Because you never stated how God could get here.
You keep saying that SOMETHING CAN'T COME FROM NOTHING but previously you seemed to be saying God did that very thing.
Now what are you saying?
ANOTHER ISSUE
(you mentioned articles in a hard drive)
Can you please paste the text to your articles (like Hawking's) that no longer exist on the internet?
And can you please paste links to your articles when they are presently on the internet?
(This would help elicit responses that outline the various theories. I simply am too unread on the subject to be able to outline all the current cosmological theories, and I wouldn't understand many of them - especially if the math being understood is what counts as "understanding", because in that case I would be very ignorant of what is being said)
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by ICANT, posted 01-12-2018 2:04 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by ICANT, posted 01-14-2018 11:17 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 324 of 868 (826908)
01-14-2018 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 317 by ICANT
01-13-2018 8:41 AM


Re: Eternal power (energy)
quote:
What would you propose to plow through that hot dense universe to get information prior to T=10-43 s?
Is nonsense?
Since nothing can be said about anything happening prior to T=10-43 s, and the universe is 1 quintillion degrees how would you propose to get any information past T=10-43 s?
Space is being created today, and even you would say it is naturalistic.
You say that God brought about the forces, which create the space, right?
The whole problem about this "beginning" being evidence that "proves God", is that you (and everybody else?) don't say where God came from.
A genuine effort would reveal that the EXACT SAME PROBLEMS would quickly arise once we attempted a solution for how God came to be in the first place.
"From nothing, then something (God)" ?
"He was always there" ?
All stated solutions that involve "God" can also be applied to some (non God based) form of Space and Matter itself.
Possibilities:
Space and Matter were part of something that always existed.
Space and matter evolved (or popped up under certain circumstances) from nothing.
Space and Matter were "eternal" in the same way God is described as "always being there".
Conclusion (for now):
The simple explanations all cancel each other out if one wants to make this "a God verses no God" cosmological origin issue.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by ICANT, posted 01-13-2018 8:41 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by Phat, posted 01-14-2018 11:56 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied
 Message 335 by ICANT, posted 01-15-2018 12:38 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 363 of 868 (827216)
01-20-2018 12:29 AM


Conservative theologian: God created many universes
A conservative (but Reform congregation) Jewish teacher had an answer for a Mr. T.
Here is part of his answer.
quote:
Lifestyle/Columnists/God Squad
Rabbi
By Rabbi Marc Gellman
God Squad: God is eternal, unlike our physical universe
Updated January 18, 2018 7:50 PM
This biblical verse (Matthew 24:35) troubles me: Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. If heaven passes away, what happens to souls there? Thank you!
T
....
This verse in Matthew is a perfect example of the belief of all the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) that God is eternal. The existence of an eternal God who is not a part of the physical universe and who predates and postdates our present universe means that God does not depend upon the world. The world depends upon God.
This belief prohibits the use of magic or any other superstition that holds out the promise of manipulating God. God is beyond all natural forces and independent of them the way a potter is independent from the pot that he or she has made. This belief in an eternal, immaterial God also prevents idolatry. One cannot worship anything in the physical universe and imagine that one is worshipping God.
This idea of an eternal God outside of nature who yet created nature is conveyed in the first verse of the Bible. In Hebrew, the verse that is translated In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, should actually be translated, In the beginning of Gods creating of this heaven and this earth. Such a translation is not only more accurate to the original Hebrew text, but it also conveys the meaning of an eternal, immaterial God. It says, in effect, that this universe of ours is just one of many universes that God has created. We are just the most recent experiment in Gods eternal nature.
God Squad: God is eternal, unlike our physical universe - Newsday
I was goggle searching for something and it appears that I found the Long Island daily newspaper.
This Jewish teacher is part of a group that includes Catholic priests (or he used to be).
Now.
I might ask if the "Gnostic" view(s) of (either) false scriptures OR a "Demiurge" creation should be considered though.
Consider the Nazarenes (also called Ebionites).
Paul was called a "Nazarene" in Acts.
These guys had the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew in Jerome's time (400 AD).
Look at the absence of the first few chapters of Matthew
(Nazarenes Gospel of Matthew lacked chapter 1 and the Ebionites Matthew Gospel lacked chapter 1 and 2)
Notice the rejection of the Torah as we now have it.
Notice the rejection of even the prophets.
This is a conservative evangelical dictionary.
quote:
Encyclopedias - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia - Ebionism; Ebionites
EBIONISM; EBIONITES
....
\I. ORIGIN OF THE NAME
1. The Poor Ones 2. Origin of the Name
\II. AUTHORITIES FOR THE OPINIONS OF THE EBIONITES
1. Irenaeus, Tertullian and Hippolytus 2. Origen and Jerome 3. Epiphanius' Description 4. Justin Martyr
\III. LITERATURE OF THE EBIONITES
1. The Gospel According to the Hebrews 2. The Clementines 3. Apocalyptic Literature
\IV. HISTORY OF EBIONISM
1. Ebionites and Essenes 2. Organization of Ebionites
\V. EVIDENCE FROM EBIONISM FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH
1. Christology of the Early Church 2. Paulinism of the Early Church
....
The Ebionites were a sect of heretics frequently mentioned by the early Fathers. In regard to their opinions, as in regard to those of most early heretical sects, there is the difficulty that to a large extent we are dependent for our information on their opponents. These opponents were not generally very careful to apprehend exactly the views of those whose opinions they undertook to refute. It adds to the difficulty in the present case that there is a dubiety as to the persons designated by the title. Sometimes, it is admitted, the name was used to designate all Jewish Christians irrespective of their opinions; at other times it denotes a sect akin to the Gnostics, who ascribed a purely human origin to our Lord.
....
2. Origen and Jerome:
From two other sources we derive further information:
Origen and Jerome both notify the fact that the Ebionites translated `almah "young woman" (it is rendered "virgin" in our the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American)). This translation, so far as the mere word is concerned, is indubitably correct. There is another point in which both afford us information. The first says (Contra Celsum, v.61) that there are two classes of Ebionites, one of which denies the miraculous conception and birth of our Lord, the other of which affirms it. Jerome, in his letter to Augustine, not only asserts the same thing but calls the one class, those affirming the miraculous birth, Nazareans, and the other Ebionites. Origen in his second book against Celsus speaks as if the only distinction between the Ebionites and other Christians was their obedience to the Mosaic law, and by their example rebuts the assertion that the Jews in becoming Christians deserted the law of their fathers.Another feature of Ebionism presented to us by Jerome (In Jesaiam, lxvi.24) is their chiliastic view--the personal reign of our Lord for 1,000 years as the Jewish Messiah.
....
3. Epiphanius' Description:
The writer who gives the most voluminous account of the Ebionites--"Ebionaeans" as he calls them--is Epiphanius. With him it is at once heresy No. X and heresy No. XXX. Before discussing the Ebionites he takes up the closely related sect of the Nazareans as heresy No. XXIX. He had already in a more compendious way considered a similarly named sect, numbering it No. XVIII. It, however, is Jewish while this is Christian. The Jewish sect is distinguished by eating no animal food and offering no sacrifices. They have thus an affinity with the Essenes. They have a peculiarity that, while they honored the patriarchs, they rejected the Pentateuch which related their history. These Nazareans dwelt East of the Jordan in Gilead and Bashan. Heresy No. XXIX is the Christian Nazareans. This name had been at first applied to all Christians. Epiphanius identifies them with the Essenes and declares their distinguishing peculiarity to be the retention of circumcision and the ceremonial law. They use the Gospel of Matthew but without the genealogies. As Heresy No. XXX he proceeds to consider the Ebionites. Ebion, Epiphanius assumes to have been a man, and calls him a "polymorphic portent," and asserts that he was connected with the Samaritans, the Essenes, the Cerinthians and Carpocratians, yet desired to be regarded a Christian. The heresy originated after the flight of the church to Pella. They denied the miraculous birth of our Lord, but maintained that a Divine influence came down upon Him at His baptism. This Divine wisdom had inspired, and in a sense dwelt, in all the patriarchs. In some sense the body of Jesus was regarded as that of Adam revived. This body was crucified and rose again. They receive only the Gospel of Matthew in the form the Cerinthians use it, i.e. the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Epiphanius gives some account of this gospel and its defects.
....
1. The Gospel According to the Hebrews:
The Gospel according to the Hebrews we know only through quotations. We can have no certainty that these quotations are accurate. The quotations may have been interpolated, and further the book from which the quotations have been made has probably passed through several recensions. The discussion of the question of the relation of this book to the canonical Gospel of Mt is considered elsewhere (see APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS). One thing is clear, there were at least two recensions of this gospel, one nearer and the other farther from the canonical Gospel; the former, the Nazarean, differed only by omitting the genealogy from the First Gospel of the Canon. The other was more strictly Ebionite and omitted all mention of the miraculous birth. The Ebionite recension began, as Epiphanius tells us, abruptly with the calling of the Apostles. The assertion of Epiphanius that the Ebionites rejected the prophets is supported by a quotation from the Gospel according to the Hebrews in Jerome (Adv. Pelag., iii.2):
Ebionism; Ebionites Definition and Meaning - Bible Dictionary
Perhaps there wasn't an omission but an original Matthew Gospel before additions to make Jesus look like he was from the House of David (through Joseph)?
Were these Nazarenes and Ebionites the original Jewish Christians of Jerusalem (with James as the "Bishop")?
Look at this recent Patheos article.
quote:
Catholic
Were the "Judaizers" Jewish Christians ("Messianic Jews")?
December 22, 2017 by Dave Armstrong
....
Some scholars are of the opinion that these were Jews and precursors of what later became the Ebionite heresy, or even worse, a strain of Gnosticism (Bruce mentions the latter possibility). Philip Schaff (one of the "patron saints" of the general Protestant view of Church history) holds to the "primitive Ebionite Jews" explanation (History of the Christian Church, Volume I: 565-567). Some scholars (e.g., Harnack and Hort) have equated the Ebionites with the Nazarenes (i.e., 4th-century patristic usage rather than biblical).
....
More modern biblical scholars and historians are even more interesting. James D. G. Dunn is always informative and fascinating, even when one disagrees with him (as I do, not infrequently):
In Galatians Paul speaks of no less than three gospels. First, his own . . . (Gal. 2.7) . . . Second is the gospel for the Jews, "for the circumcision" (2.7), represented by the "pillar apostles", Peter in particular, centred on Jerusalem. Paul recognizes this Jewish version of the gospel as a legitimate form of Christian kerygma, appropriate to the Jews . . . in his view it involved a greater subjection to the law than he himself thought right (2.11-21). However, so long as the proponents of each of these two gospels recognized the validity of the other and did not seek to impose their own gospel on those who held to the other, Paul was content. But evidently the churches in Palestine had a legalistic right wing which opposed the law-free Gentile mission. Theirs is the "other gospel" which Paul attacks in fierce language in 1.6-9. It is not finally clear whether Paul denied Christian status to this third gospel (1.7 probably means: it is not another gospel but a perversion of the gospel of Christ). But he leaves no doubt as to what he thought of the so-called "Judaizers" attempts to force their understanding of the gospel on others: it is no good news, the way of bondage; those who preach it are "sham Christians", they have missed the full truth and ought to castrate themselves (2.4f; 5.12)!
(Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, London: SCM Press, 2nd edition, 1990, 23-24)
We know from Gal. 2.4, not to mention Acts 15.1 and Phil. 3.2ff, that there was a strong party in the Palestinian churches, a powerful force in the Christianity of Jerusalem and Palestine, which insisted on circumcision for all converts. Paul calls them some very rude names "false brethren" (RSV), "sham Christians, interlopers" (NEB Gal 2.4), "dogs" (Phil. 3.2) . . . But it is quite clear, from Gal. 2 and Acts 15 at least, that they were Jewish Christians " that is to say, a force within the Jerusalem community who could with justice claim to speak for Jewish believers in Judea . . . Here at once we recognize a form of Jewish Christianity which stands within the Christian spectrum at the time of Paul's missionary work . . .
(Ibid., 252-253)
//http://www.patheos.com/...anic-jews.html#0ZYJdgPCxfARLTwu.99
I still have trouble with those who want to see the current European Bible as representing the first century views.
The Hebrew Matthew was destroyed by the Catholics.
It was a "heretic Bible".
The "Bishop" issue, as we now know it, was a European corruption (especially after 100 AD).
Modern Protestant scholars want to claim Apostolic succession for the Roman Catholic church Bishops.
Like Michael Kruger.
quote:
Where Are All the Heretical Bishops in the Second Century?
February 15, 2016
But let’s test this theory by asking a simple question: who were the bishops in second-century Christianity? If heresy was as widespread as orthodoxy, we should expect to find a number of bishops that are openly Marcionite, Ebionite, Gnostic, and beyond.
Where Are All the Heretical Bishops in the Second Century? - Canon Fodder
They forget that Hegesippus (around 180) wrote about all the early Bishops, and James was the first Bishop of Jerusalem.
quote:
Hegesippus and the Events which He Mentions. - Bible Hub
In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says ... How old he was at that time we do not know, but he was very likely a man past middle life, and hence was probably born early in the second century. With this, his own ...
Hegesippus and the Events which He Mentions.
He said James was a vegetarian!
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/hegesippus.html
He was a vegetarian.
There is a first century "heretic" Bishop!
James the Just.
Bro of Jesus.
quote:
12) The disciples said to Jesus: We know that you will depart from us; who is it who will be great over us? Jesus said to them: Wherever you have come, you will go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.
Gospel of Thomas Saying 12 - GospelThomas.com
An early comment (from before the 60s AD) according to almost all scholars AND IT MIGHT EVEN GO BACK TO JESUS.
On the creation.
Not in our Gospels in the European Bible.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 364 of 868 (827217)
01-20-2018 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 335 by ICANT
01-15-2018 12:38 AM


Re: Eternal power (energy)
quote:
LNA writes:
"Space is being created today, and even you would say it is naturalistic."
I don't know what that has to do with getting information past T=10-43 s., towards the zero side.
You said the scripture describes God stretching space.
(I should also ask if anybody pre Einstein interpretations interpreted that as some sort of "cosmological constant" type of space creation BECAUSE it seems like a modern 20th century reinterpretation of the Prophet Isaiah)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by ICANT, posted 01-15-2018 12:38 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024