For me, it's either theistic evolution or nothing.

[Alithis]

Because I didn't read the rest of it. (It would be helpful if you used conventional sentence structure and punctuation, by the way.)

I believe that Jesus is the Word of God. I also believe that John chapter one are words written by a man. I don't know what "just man's words" means.

Nope, you've missed it again. Here's a question for you: how do you know that God has said something, without in some way depending on a human being for that knowledge?

already answered the last one . you didn't believe me the first time .why would you now .

you say you believe jesus is the word of god .( but you didn't say "become flesh " wonder why not . )

if they are words written by man.. then why do"YOU " believe them .. is it that you choose to believe some things and not others .. which means as i already stated .you are an unbeliever in things you chose to disbelieve and an believer in things you think are an advantage to you for salvation .
But that would be double minded to the extreme. if you can't believe one single part of what is written , upon what do you base your belief in ANY of it ? there is no 'faith" involved nor active .

 

[Speedwell]

when you refuse the declare belief in such a fundamental question on christianity (which is laid out also in the nicene statement as per the rules of what defines "christian at CF ).. then arriving at the implied conclusion is perfectly acceptable .

There is nothing in the Nicene Creed which requires belief in any particular theory of the nature of the Divine inspiration of Scripture - - including yours--nor in the pernicious doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

 

[Alithis]

There is nothing in the Nicene Creed which requires belief in any particular theory of the nature of the Divine inspiration of Scripture - - including yours--nor in the pernicious doctrine of Sola Scripture.

and still you avoid the question posed ..interesting .

 

[rjs330]

So you received God's word without benefit of any human intermediaries?

That's,my point. You claim to,know about God. Or at,least I think,you do. But your claim is based upon God's word. We HAVE to have God's word if we are to know about God. If we are to discredit or disparage God's word then we are left with nothing since God doesn't speak audibly to us all.

If God's word cannot be trusted what can?

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[rjs330]

Apostolic Witness. The Bible merely corroberates it.

Is not the bible apostolic witness?

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Speedwell]

and still you avoid the question posed ..interesting .

I have actually lost track of what the question was, but you may take it for granted that I subscribe to the Nicene Creed (or I wouldn't be posting here). You have no right to demand that I justify my faith to you any further than that, especially given your condescending manner. I entered this conversation with a simple question and all I got from you was a snotty reply.

 

[Speedwell]

Is not the bible apostolic witness?

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Possibly only the Gospel of John. The Synoptics testify to the existence of Apostolic Witness.

 

[Alithis]

I have actually lost track of what the question was, but you may take it for granted that I subscribe to the Nicene Creed (or I wouldn't be posting here). You have no right to demand that I justify my faith to you any further than that, especially given your condescending manner. I entered this conversation with a simple question and all I got from you was a snotty reply.

we are to be prepared (wiling) to give answer in regard to our faith anytime .. why so defensive .
you either believe the scriptures or you don't .. if you believe one part of scripture but not another then upon what are you basing ANY of your belief in? if you say you believe jesus is the word of god become flesh ,, then you do so because it is written .. but then when it is written that he created the earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th ..you choose to disbelieve it . that is the epitome of being double minded

 

[sfs]

That's,my point. You claim to,know about God. Or at,least I think,you do. But your claim is based upon God's word. We HAVE to have God's word if we are to know about God. If we are to discredit or disparage God's word then we are left with nothing since God doesn't speak audibly to us all.

You didn't answer my question. Let me ask it a different way: How do you know that the Bible is God's word, that it is inerrant, and that it has to be interpreted in a certain way? "Because otherwise we wouldn't know anything about God" isn't an answer. That just tells me why you would want the Bible to be God's word. It doesn't tell me why it is God's word.

 

[sfs]

already answered the last one . you didn't believe me the first time .why would you now .

That was a different question. This one was about whether you received God's word through human intermediaries or not. And no, I see no reason to believe you. I've heard very similar statements from Mormons about their scriptures. Do you think I should believe them?

you say you believe jesus is the word of god .( but you didn't say "become flesh " wonder why not . )

Could you get rid of the snotty attitude? There's nothing remotely helpful or edifying about it. Yes, I believe that Jesus was the Word of God made flesh.

if they are words written by man.. then why do"YOU " believe them ..

I believe them because through them I encounter God. That means I take them very seriously, but doesn't impose on my any particular belief about exactly how they function or to any particular doctrine of inspiration.

 

[Alithis]

That was a different question. This one was about whether you received God's word through human intermediaries or not. And no, I see no reason to believe you. I've heard very similar statements from Mormons about their scriptures. Do you think I should believe them?

Could you get rid of the snotty attitude? There's nothing remotely helpful or edifying about it. Yes, I believe that Jesus was the Word of God made flesh.

I believe them because through them I encounter God. That means I take them very seriously, but doesn't impose on my any particular belief about exactly how they function or to any particular doctrine of inspiration.

and why do you believe that he is the word of god made flesh ? because it is written . so you take what is written and believe it . but then you take what is written elsewhere and disbelieve it .
in fact you impose the word of man over the word of god as if the word of man is greater and god could be wrong ? and the result ?
-you choose to declare god a liar by imposing mans theory of evolution . it is honestly simply a double minded standard .your a believer and an unbeliever at the same time .. In line with the OP topic .. "its theistic evolution for me or nothing .." that is a declaration that man is right and god is not . it is declaring god to be untrue . it is faithless and the absolute opposite of everything involved in being christ like . (christian ,means- christ like ) Jesus never once questioned the word of god in fact he quotes from it thus authenticating it as 100% faithful and true . you need to rethink .

 

[sfs]

and why do you believe that he is the word of god made flesh ? because it is written . so you take what is written and believe it . but then you take what is written elsewhere and disbelieve it .
in fact you impose the word of man over the word of god as if the word of man is greater and god could be wrong ? and the result ?
-you choose to declare god a liar by imposing mans theory of evolution . it is honestly simply a double minded standard .your a believer and an unbeliever at the same time .. In line with the OP topic .. "its theistic evolution for me or nothing .." that is a declaration that man is right and god is not . it is declaring god to be untrue . it is faithless and the absolute opposite of everything involved in being christ like . (christian ,means- christ like ) Jesus never once questioned the word of god in fact he quotes from it thus authenticating it as 100% faithful and true . you need to rethink .

Based on our discussion here, I believe I've thought about this subject a lot more than you have. I also believe we have nothing further to discuss.

 

[Alithis]

Based on our discussion here, I believe I've thought about this subject a lot more than you have. I also believe we have nothing further to discuss.

then you need to rethink (its what the word repent actually means ) to rethink the change your thoughts ,turn from 'your own ways
and agree with god . not hold to your own ways and opinions in opposition to God . God sates he created the earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th . but you disagree with him . your at enmity with him in this . you need to repent and agree with him by faith (without faith it is impsossible to please God . ) theistic evolution is not based upon belief or acceptance or faith ..it is rotted firmly in unbelief . refusal to believe and agree with god is rebellion and sin . it is the way of the world .. not the way of the lord JESUS .

 

[Speedwell]

we are to be prepared (wiling) to give answer in regard to our faith anytime .. why so defensive.

Not defensive, just deeply offended by your manner, and disappointed that a fellow Christian would carry on in such a way. I am always willing to explain my beliefs to a person who isn't just looking for an opportunity to be nasty.

you either believe the scriptures or you don't.

Believe them to be what? Obviously we disagree as to the nature of divine inspiration.

if you believe one part of scripture but not another then upon what are you basing ANY of your belief in?

I believe all of it for what it is.

if you say you believe jesus is the word of god become flesh ,, then you do so because it is written

No, that is not why I believe it. If it was possible for you to enter into a civil discussion, that would be the main point at issue.

 

[rjs330]

Possibly only the Gospel of John. The Synoptics testify to the existence of Apostolic Witness.

But how do you know John is true? What makes John any more true than any other book,of the bible? John was written by a man and he could be telling stories of fanciful thinking for all we know. Apostolic witness is nothing if we don't trust it. I trust scripture, all of it.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Speedwell]

But how do you know John is true? What makes John any more true than any other book,of the bible? John was written by a man and he could be telling stories of fanciful thinking for all we know. Apostolic witness is nothing if we don't trust it. I trust scripture, all of it.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Because the Gospel of John is the only book we have likely to actually have been written by one of the Twelve. That's as good as it gets.

 

[rjs330]

You didn't answer my question. Let me ask it a different way: How do you know that the Bible is God's word, that it is inerrant, and that it has to be interpreted in a certain way? "Because otherwise we wouldn't know anything about God" isn't an answer. That just tells me why you would want the Bible to be God's word. It doesn't tell me why it is God's word.

I'm very confused here. I do not understand where you are,coming from. Have you asked Jesus to,me your Lord,and savior? If you have then why are you questioning the validity of,scripture. You would not know anything about sin, salvation, Jesus or the character of God without it. Why are you So dead set on doubting scripture?

If you are,not a believer then I understand why you doubt.



Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[rjs330]

Because the Gospel of John is the only book we have likely to actually have been written by one of the Twelve. That's as good as it gets.

How do you know that? How do you know what is written is true? The claim is it was written by John, but we,don't know that. We also do not know if what is written in John is true. You take it by faith. Take the rest of the scripture by faith also.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Speedwell]

I'm very confused here. I do not understand where you are,coming from. Have you asked Jesus to,me your Lord,and savior? If you have then why are you questioning the validity of,scripture.



Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Scripture is content, but that's not what we are talking about. What we are talking about is the authority on which that content is to be believed, a very different question altogether.

You would not know anything about sin, salvation, Jesus or the character of God without it.

I don't think so. Christ's church could survive without the Bible, as it did for centuries before the Canon was established. But without the church and its tradition, the Bible would be regarded as nothing more than a moderately interesting collection of obscure ancient texts.

Why are you So dead set on doubting scripture?

Why do you suppose I "doubt scripture" when all I do is doubt your interpretation of it?

 

[Speedwell]

How do you know that? How do you know what is written is true? The claim is it was written by John, but we,don't know that.

There is certainly a great deal of scholarship pointing to that conclusion.

We also do not know if what is written in John is true.

Are you seriously proposing that John was lying? That he would write and circulate a book among people who had at least second-hand knowledge of the events described which seriously misrepresented those events and expect to get away with it? Come on, be real.