This is not a personal attack...just a point

Zadok001

Gli alberi hanno orecchie, occhi e denti.
Feb 5, 2003
419
8
Visit site
✟594.00
Follower of Christ:

Not sure I follow. The 6-day Creation myth is falsified, or at the very least, has MASSIVE problems to overcome. You've been on this board for a while now, FoC. Can you really, honestly tell me that NOTHING here is at ALL a challenge to literalist Creationism? The problem of insects? Biodiversity in different parts of the world?

So, if a literal interpretation of the Bible is problematic, how does this make a metaphorical interpretation less valid? What we're dealing with here is ACTIVE, defined falsification - The 6-Day creation and the flood myth just don't mesh with reality. They don't work. They don't work because they define very specific aspects of the world, and the world doesn't match those definitions.

The question of the virgin birth, Christ's teachings, and the atonement of sin are *entirely* different issues. We can't falsify those, not realistically. They will likely never be set aside as metaphorical. So you can allay that fear - No one's gonna be able to tear out Christianity's throat, not like that, not today.

The 'key' to Christianity, I've been told, is faith in the fact that Jesus died to atone for our sins, and from his blood, we are saved. No matter how hard atheists try, that's never gonna go away. (I, being an atheist, find this unfortunate. :) But nonetheless.) Believing in a metaphorical creation and flood certainly doesn't diminish one's ability to believe in the Christ. It merely allows one to accept empirical reality.

Tell me, FoC. Do you believe that accepting the Bible, literally, as it is written, is a prerequisite for entering Heaven? If so, where do you get this idea from? It's not in the Bible. By the blood of the Christ, we're supposed to be saved - Not by the wood of Noah's ark, not by the mutations in our genes, not by death of Abel - By Christ, and only by Christ. So where is the harm in accepting what we have found to make sense, and leaving faith to faith? You believe you know Christ in your heart. By your faith, this means you are saved. You need not accept the Flood in a literal sense.

/me gets off pulpit, and wonders how he got up there to begin with.
 
Upvote 0
Today at 06:34 PM fragmentsofdreams said this in Post #2

If I recall correctly, the earliest manuscripts lack that verse.


That is a whole 'nuther debate. For the affirmative:

http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/1john5-7.htm

and

http://www.simplebiblestudies.com/NT1john5threebear.htm

For the negative:

http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/1john57.asp?FROM=biblecenter

and

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/vindicationof.htm

Obviously Lucaspa doesn't feel 1 John 5:7 is authentic (his words clearly indicate that he rests his case with those who take the Johannine Comma as an interpolation: "There is no genuine verse in the NT equating all three" - emphasis added).

FoC may disagree with Lucaspa on this point, but that does not justify these comments:

"This is an huge issue when one tries to teach that which they have little to know knowledge of."

and

"A person who does not even KNOW what the Bible says, then proceeds to teach that it is wrong in its account based on what they personally believe."

Lucaspa has demonstrated no lack of knowledge of 1 John 5:7. He was careful to include the modifier, "genuine", showing his awareness of this passage. Furthermore, I've watched, and Lucaspa has never once taught that the Bible is wrong on any account. He has always professed that YEC creationists are wrong in their interpretation - never that the Bible itself was wrong.

You should be more careful when you make - "just a point".

 
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Today at 05:44 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #1

lucaspa:
''Also, some major doctrines are not specifically Biblical. Trinity is the prime example. There is no genuine verse in the NT equating all three -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit -- as being one. There are verses equating two of the three, but never all three. ''


The truth;

"For there are three bearing witness in Heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one."
(1 John 5:7 LITV)[/I]

I said "genuine verse".  This "verse" started out as a marginal notation in the earliest manuscripts that we have.  Later copyists inserted that notation into the text.

This is an huge issue when one tries to teach that which they have little to know knowledge of.

But I do have knowledge of this. I had to research Trinity in some depth during a discussion with some Jehovah's Witnesses a few years ago.

This also affects the idea that this person may also be teaching that evolution does indeed fit into a scriptural account of creation.

A person who does not even KNOW what the Bible says, then proceeds to teach that it is wrong in its account based on what they personally believe
.

 :) Of course it is a personal attack.  If you can't discuss the issues, find one area that you think is a mistake and then imply, like you are doing, that everything the person says is a mistake.

Very soon the foundational beliefs (virgin birth, resurrection, atonement for sin etc) will not be accepted as truth, but given to personal interpretation.

Why? NONE of these are amenable to scientific investigation.  None of them left evidence we can study today.  There is very little in the Bible that science can comment on.  Science can't discuss the healings of Jesus, the resurrection of Lazarus, the loaves and fishes, etc. All for the same reason: no evidence to study today.

Christians have been making personal interpretations of these long before evolution came along. For instance, in regard to the virgin birth, there was a movement in the early Church called Adoptionism. By this view, Jesus was the adopted, not biological, son of God.  Jehovah's Witness are a variant on Adoptionism.

Dont believe it, how did the simple verse above get ignored by one teaching ''truth''??

Not ignored.  I knew that it wasn't genuine.  How is it that such a self-proclaimed knower of the Bible didn't know that? 
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Today at 09:44 PM Arikay said this in Post #6

There is a danger in spliting christianity into new and old age gods. It divides christians against each other and makes christianity its own worst enemy.

Arikay, FoC's use of "new age God" is simply an ad hominen attack on me. Ignore it.  I've asked him twice to define what he means by that and he has ignored both requests.

Altho you are correct that FoC's unintended consequence is to damage Christianity.  But my point in the thread "Creationism is not Christian" is that creationists do that all the time.  Creationism is Christianity's worst enemy.  FoC doesn't like that so he simply says that my "religion"  (whatever that may be) is an enemy of Christianity.

It's a more sophisticated version of "that's what you are, so what am I?"
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Today at 08:53 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #5

Yes, Lucaspa was very careful with his words to be sure.

So this becomes a debate of texts now that I have already spent 2 years with.

Sorry lucaspa, your new age god wins this one

 :(  God is God. You haven't told us what the "new age god" is and how it differs from the Yahweh of the Bible.  

What we are discussing is: how did God create? By your interpretation of the Bible, or by the mechanisms of evolution from the evidence God left in His Creation?
 
Upvote 0

Follower of Christ

Literal 6 Day Creationist<br />''An Evening and a
Mar 12, 2003
7,049
103
58
✟7,754.00
Faith
Christian
Jehovahs witnesses, huh.

Well then, I understand you views completely then.
BTW, tell Jesus his brother Lucifer says hey.

I know what J.W.'s believe, it is as heretical as it gets.


And if I can find the article again I will post it.
There is already a Jesus Group of some sort who is questioning the virgin birth.
Dont tell me that it wont happen, it has already begun.

I still want to know about these:

-What role do the scripture play in a christians life?

-Who is the Biblical Jesus (supernaturally)?

-Is God Jehovah also the gods of other religions (are we all worshipping the same god)?


And I know about 1 John 5:7.
I have studied extensively the different texts.

What I found odd was that you did not immediatly use its questionable origins for your defense as I had expected.
Others brought it up first.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Today at 11:46 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #10

Jehovahs witnesses, huh.

Well then, I understand you views completely then.
BTW, tell Jesus his brother Lucifer says hey
.

No, you don't.&nbsp; You've jumped at another conclusion. I said I was having discussions with Jehovah's Witnesses, not that I am one.

It would help communication if you would really read what is there, and not what you want to be there to demonize me.

I know what J.W.'s believe, it is as heretical as it gets.

And they have played with the translation of the Bible to justify their beliefs.&nbsp; However, I am a little surprised at your vehemence adn suspicious of your "knowledge" of JW.&nbsp; JWs are the absolute literalists and creationists.&nbsp;&nbsp;They at least support you on your literal interpretation of Genesis 1; they share it.&nbsp;

That alone should have told you that I am not a JW. But, of course, you are not using rational thought here.&nbsp; You are just desperately looking for something to tar me with.

And if I can find the article again I will post it.
There is already a Jesus Group of some sort who is questioning the virgin birth.
Dont tell me that it wont happen, it has already begun
.

Again,&nbsp;you didn't read the post.&nbsp; I said science couldn't touch the doctrines.&nbsp; I also said that Christians had been using personal interpretation ever since the start of Christianity.&nbsp; You didn't read about Adoptionism, did you?&nbsp; That was around during the first 200 years of Christianity and survived into the Arianism of the 400s.&nbsp; So it's a little late to say "already begun".&nbsp; It began 1,970 years ago.&nbsp;

And I know about 1 John 5:7.
I have studied extensively the different texts
.

In that case you know what happened. Why did you pretend differently? Why did you try to pass off the verse as genuine when your study of the texts told you it was an (innocent) interpolation?&nbsp;&nbsp;You throw the word "deceiver" at me a lot.&nbsp; How is what you did not deception?

What I found odd was that you did not immediatly use its questionable origins for your defense as I had expected.
Others brought it up first
.

That's because I was offline doing other things and didn't see it until after Jerry had commented. :)&nbsp; In the event, I wrote my reply before noting Jerry's post, otherwise I would have given him credit.&nbsp; My apologies, Jerry.&nbsp; Sorry, FoC, but as you told me, there are other things in life than hanging around the board. As you noted, I was careful in my language.&nbsp; That is evidence that I knew about the verse.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Yesterday at 08:41 PM Jerry Smith said this in Post #4


Obviously Lucaspa doesn't feel 1 John 5:7 is authentic (his words clearly indicate that he rests his case with those who take the Johannine Comma as an interpolation: "There is no genuine verse in the NT equating all three" - emphasis added).

FoC may disagree with Lucaspa on this point, but that does not justify these comments:

"This is an huge issue when one tries to teach that which they have little to know knowledge of."

and

"A person who does not even KNOW what the Bible says, then proceeds to teach that it is wrong in its account based on what they personally believe."

Lucaspa has demonstrated no lack of knowledge of 1 John 5:7. He was careful to include the modifier, "genuine", showing his awareness of this passage. Furthermore, I've watched, and Lucaspa has never once taught that the Bible is wrong on any account. He has always professed that YEC creationists are wrong in their interpretation - never that the Bible itself was wrong.

You should be more careful when you make - "just a point".&nbsp;&nbsp;

Thank you, Jerry. Both for the websites and the fact that you actually read&nbsp;my posts and their content.

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault."&nbsp; Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
 
Upvote 0

Follower of Christ

Literal 6 Day Creationist<br />''An Evening and a
Mar 12, 2003
7,049
103
58
✟7,754.00
Faith
Christian
I did not say I thought you were a J.W.

If you used a J.W. for your study on the trinty, then your view is very distorted.
They say that Jesus and Lucifer are both gods and are brothers.

That does not quite fit the normal christian veiw of the triune God.

Is there any reason you continue to elude the somple questions I have asked.

I realize this is not the proper forum, but there are easy questions requiring only brief answers.

How about just this one, and it only counts if you answer honestly.

-Is God Jehovah (Yahweh) the same god of other religions, are we all worshipping the same GOD.
 
Upvote 0

Late_Cretaceous

&lt;font color=&quot;#880000&quot; &gt;&lt;/font&g
Apr 4, 2002
1,965
118
Visit site
✟18,025.00
Faith
Catholic
Correct me if I am wrong, and I am sure you will, but I was under the impression that "Lucifer" in the bible was NOT Satan.&nbsp; As I understood it, Lucifer was a Babylonian king (in some translations Lucifer is replaced with the "bright and morning star" - interestingly enough Jesus is called the "bright and morning star" in Revelation).
 
Upvote 0

Follower of Christ

Literal 6 Day Creationist<br />''An Evening and a
Mar 12, 2003
7,049
103
58
✟7,754.00
Faith
Christian
Today at 12:08 AM lucaspa said this in Post #11

Today at 11:46 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #10

Jehovahs witnesses, huh.

Well then, I understand you views completely then.
BTW, tell Jesus his brother Lucifer says hey
.

No, you don't.&nbsp; You've jumped at another conclusion. I said I was having discussions with Jehovah's Witnesses, not that I am one.

It would help communication if you would really read what is there, and not what you want to be there to demonize me.

I know what J.W.'s believe, it is as heretical as it gets.

And they have played with the translation of the Bible to justify their beliefs.&nbsp; However, I am a little surprised at your vehemence adn suspicious of your "knowledge" of JW.&nbsp; JWs are the absolute literalists and creationists.&nbsp;&nbsp;They at least support you on your literal interpretation of Genesis 1; they share it.&nbsp;

That alone should have told you that I am not a JW. But, of course, you are not using rational thought here.&nbsp; You are just desperately looking for something to tar me with.

And if I can find the article again I will post it.
There is already a Jesus Group of some sort who is questioning the virgin birth.
Dont tell me that it wont happen, it has already begun
.

Again,&nbsp;you didn't read the post.&nbsp; I said science couldn't touch the doctrines.&nbsp; I also said that Christians had been using personal interpretation ever since the start of Christianity.&nbsp; You didn't read about Adoptionism, did you?&nbsp; That was around during the first 200 years of Christianity and survived into the Arianism of the 400s.&nbsp; So it's a little late to say "already begun".&nbsp; It began 1,970 years ago.&nbsp;

And I know about 1 John 5:7.
I have studied extensively the different texts
.

In that case you know what happened. Why did you pretend differently? Why did you try to pass off the verse as genuine when your study of the texts told you it was an (innocent) interpolation?&nbsp;&nbsp;You throw the word "deceiver" at me a lot.&nbsp; How is what you did not deception?

What I found odd was that you did not immediatly use its questionable origins for your defense as I had expected.
Others brought it up first
.

That's because I was offline doing other things and didn't see it until after Jerry had commented. :)&nbsp; In the event, I wrote my reply before noting Jerry's post, otherwise I would have given him credit.&nbsp; My apologies, Jerry.&nbsp; Sorry, FoC, but as you told me, there are other things in life than hanging around the board. As you noted, I was careful in my language.&nbsp; That is evidence that I knew about the verse.
Is there any reason you continue to elude the simple questions I have asked.

I realize this is not the proper forum, but there are easy questions requiring only brief answers.

How about just this one, and it only counts if you answer honestly.

-Is God Jehovah (Yahweh) the same god of other religions, are we all worshipping the same GOD.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Cantuar

Forever England
Jul 15, 2002
1,085
4
69
Visit site
✟8,889.00
Faith
Agnostic
If you used a J.W. for your study on the trinty, then your view is very distorted.

He didn't say that. For crying out loud, what is WITH you people? He said he had to do a lot of research on the trinity because he was engaged in a debate or discussion or argument or whatever with some Jehovah's Witnesses. He didn't say he used JW sources; in fact, as long as he was arguing against their position, it'd be very strange if he had relied on their literature. Where on earth are you getting the notion that he used JW sources? If I was discussing evolution with JWs, I'd be using my usual science sources. At the very most, I might try and glance at a JW tract just to see where they were coming from, but that would be the extent of my involvement with their side of it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums