Oy vey! A talking snake!!

[busterdog]

I give up. I honestly tried to understand your position, Hypo, and all I get in response to genuine questioning is circular references to previous posts and out-of-context Bible quotes. No concrete answers; just more smoke and mirrors.

I tried, busterdog.

I guess all one can ask is that you try.

I thought his Bible quotes worked well in the context. If you put it in the context of his apparent belief system, it works better. Shernren described the basic divergence in belief systems on this page.

Is the distinction between knowledge that God gives and that man has by his own means vague? Very often this is true.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Without even addressing whether Hypo did a good job or a bad job in stating his position, no one believes this. You are better off with that as your working hypothesis. Seem to be hammering the way he says things, but the above "fiction = false" is not required by his argument.

Fiction is still fiction, not truth.

If something has no truth it is...

 

[HypoTypoSis]

Is the distinction between knowledge that God gives and that man has by his own means vague?

According to scripture, it is not vague, it is impossible; at least, to the unsaved, hard of heart and, where and when applicable, the spiritually immature. Attempting to explain to people of such the spiritual things of God and the gifts of God might be likened to trying to explain nuclear physics to, say, a squirrel. Such mysteries are beyond the capabilities of mere mortal man. They can only be understood by one born of spirit and then only in due time with the maturity of that spirit as and how The Spirit of God so imparts the understanding of that spiritual knowledge to each individual born of The Spirit of God. In the earthy (human) sense, some possess inherent talents while others' capabilities are learned; similarly, in the spiritual sense, understanding is, for some, gifted, often as an ebb and flow supply, as so needed at the time, as each so requests and God, approvingly, grants while, on the other hand, still others, though their spirit may be older, have never matured and possess only a measure of faith to sustain them. The key in all is not how well one may understand either the spiritual or physical mysteries of God, for no amount of applied brain cells can ever come to this Truth of God but, rather, how close the affiliation of one is with The Almighty and that is something that can only be attained through a submitted will and countless hours, days and years of a lifetime speaking not to but with The Almighty on bended knee in prayer, there simply are no shortcuts nor can it be found through any amount or depth of human reason or knowledge for it is not wrought from below but comes from on high.

 

[busterdog]

If something has no truth it is...

Just ask the man, "Do you think parables have no truth in them."

Bet you a million bucks he answers the question correctly.

Also remember, he is writing in the context of established criticism that goes as follows: We know that no one can feed 5,000 people with a few loaves and fishes, so knowing that, we also know that most of those 5,000 people brought a fish sandwich, and demonstrated the miracle of sharing. That is a fiction that is a lie.

Does anyone here believe such criticisms? I can think of a few evolutionists I would suspect, but they have not been posting here. So, I don't really know.

Is it fair to assume that all metphors are in the same category? No. That is why we dialogue.

 

[gluadys]

Also remember, he is writing in the context of established criticism that goes as follows: We know that no one can feed 5,000 people with a few loaves and fishes, so knowing that, we also know that most of those 5,000 people brought a fish sandwich, and demonstrated the miracle of sharing. That is a fiction that is a lie.

I wouldn't presume to know that this is a correct analysis. But what is the basis for asserting it is a lie?

As far as I know, no version of the story (and it is found in all four gospels, one of the few stories outside the passion that is) indicates how the people were fed. Only that they were.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Just ask the man, "Do you think parables have no truth in them."

Bet you a million bucks he answers the question correctly.

And if he said they did he would be contradicting himself, would he not? The realm of fiction includes parables, doesn't it?

It doesn't really matter. He (HypoTypoSis, just in case you haven't figured out we were talking about you) won't respond anyways. It seems he's decided to only respond to you in this thread.

 

[busterdog]

I wouldn't presume to know that this is a correct analysis. But what is the basis for asserting it is a lie?

As far as I know, no version of the story (and it is found in all four gospels, one of the few stories outside the passion that is) indicates how the people were fed. Only that they were.

Text: Mat 16:9 Jesus: "Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?"

Imagined Subtext: Jesus: "Did see how I got rid of all those losers witout feeding them? Now, that was a miracle!" (Not).

Sorry, couldn't resist. It may be better that we don't go there.

Perhaps the Passover Plot is a better example for demonstrating that Hypo is speaking to demonstrable error in modern theology is that takes basic truth and improperly calls it fiction. Not necessarily the evolutionits here, but many YECs are speaking to these modern nonbeleiving critics.

 

[busterdog]

And if he said they did he would be contradicting himself, would he not? The realm of fiction includes parables, doesn't it?

Here is the thesis: Much modern theology makes the literal truth of the Gospel into fiction. That theology is a lie.

No one in their right mind thinks a parable must be literal truth to be true. That is a completely seperate issue -- despite the fact that a similar vocabulary is in play. Hypo never said anything about parables being literally true. There is no debate between inerrant believers and the proponents of demythologizing that touches upon the parables.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Here is the thesis: Much modern theology makes the literal truth of the Gospel into fiction. That theology is a lie.

No one in their right mind thinks a parable must be literal truth to be true. That is a completely seperate issue -- despite the fact that a similar vocabulary is in play. Hypo never said anything about parables being literally true. There is no debate between inerrant believers and the proponents of demythologizing that touches upon the parables.

Do you think Paradise Lost contains truths? Hypo clearly does not, thus making me think he thinks anything that is fictional is absolutely false.

Hypo still refuses to acknowledge my existence so we'll never know.

 

[HypoTypoSis]

The liberal churches of the Western world, especially, Britain, Europe and, yes, the United States likely stand in the face of great danger of losing their "candlestick" for succumbing to the Nimrodian humanist ways of the world sacrificing doctrinal purity for numbers, bottom line profits and a social 'feel good' gospel quietly blending into one with all religions, beliefs and faiths of a one world religion in the developing New World Order.

Revelation 2:4-5

• Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.
• Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

II Corinthians 6:14-17

• Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
• And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
• And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
• Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord

 

[Scotishfury09]

Double post. Sorry.

 

[Scotishfury09]

The liberal churches of the Western world, especially, Britain, Europe and, yes, the United States likely stand in the face of great danger of losing their "candlestick" for succumbing to the Nimrodian humanist ways of the world sacrificing doctrinal purity for numbers, bottom line profits and a social 'feel good' gospel quietly blending into one with all religions, beliefs and faiths of a one world religion in the developing New World Order.

Revelation 2:4-5

• Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.
• Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

II Corinthians 6:14-17

• Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
• And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
• And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
• Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord

 

[Assyrian]

Not sure what TE stands for but at the risk of quoting out of context, "in the beginning it was not so" in that it was not God's desire man should know the difference between the knowledge of good and evil.

Yes you are quoting out of context. You referred to the tree of knowledge of good and evil before and drew completely unjustified conclusions from it. Yet you never seem to want to discuss your claims. I answered you about the tree of knowledge in post 258 http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=43216136&postcount=258 but you never replied.

However, since man screwed that up, as the saying goes, times changed.
There is human knowledge and there is scriptural knowledge and the twain shall never meet.

God both inspired the scripture we read, and created the universe humans study and learn about.

For all its pride filled search for truth human knowledge is incapable of finding that truth for, as the scriptures teach:Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

That would be 2Tim 3:7.

Talking about the inability of false religious teachers to bring people to a knowledge of spiritual truth. It doesn't say anything about human knowledge of the world around us being good or bad.

For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

1Cor 2:11...

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

1Cor 2:14 Non Christians cannot understand the Gospel. What has this to do with science?

On the other hand, only those that are in Christ can ever come to the true truth that is only found in spiritual truth as the scriptures, also, teach:

Classic Christian Dualism here. Only the Spiritual is true. It is a rejection of God's Creation.

even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

Back to verse 11. Natural man can understand the natural world, but only people with the Spirit of God can understand the thoughts of God. Does not say that natural man's understanding of the natural world is false or that it is wrong for natural man to understand the natural world. It does not say it is wrong for spiritual men to understand the natural world either. It is God's creation.

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

Verse 12, understanding the Gospel and the heart of God.

Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

Verse 13. Worldly wisdom cannot understand God, that is why Paul uses the teaching of the Holy Spirit so spiritual people can learn spiritual things.

This is not saying what you want it to say. Paul does not say there is anything wrong with learning about how the world God created works.

Anything man's knowledge is capable of producing is of benefit only in this life

God created cabbages which are only of benefit in this world, just like trees and mountains and rivers and fish and galaxies. Doesn't mean God was wrong to create cabbage, or that farmers are wrong to grow them or even that scientists are wrong to study their biology, only that we need something more too, we need a relationship with God.

Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.

Eccles 1:2

What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?

Verse 3

and has no real merit

Tell that to his wife and children at home who go hungry because he did not labour under the sun. Prov 20:13 Love not sleep, lest you come to poverty; open your eyes, and you will have plenty of bread.

For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.

On to Eccles 3:19. You missed out verse 18 where the writer tells us that in himself, man is just another animal, Eccles 3:18I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. A nice text for the People are Not Animals! thread

You also missed out on some of the conclusions he drew Eccles 9:7Go, eat your bread in joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart, for God has already approved what you do.
8 Let your garments be always white. Let not oil be lacking on your head.
9 Enjoy life with the wife whom you love, all the days of your vain life that he has given you under the sun, because that is your portion in life and in your toil at which you toil under the sun.
10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going.
A verse that applies equally well to the cabbage farmer as to a microbiologist.

Eccles 11:6In the morning sow your seed, and at evening withhold not your hand, for you do not know which will prosper, this or that, or whether both alike will be good.
7 Light is sweet, and it is pleasant for the eyes to see the sun.
:8 So if a person lives many years, let him rejoice in them all; but let him remember that the days of darkness will be many. All that comes is vanity.
9 Rejoice, O young man, in your youth, and let your heart cheer you in the days of your youth. Walk in the ways of your heart and the sight of your eyes. But know that for all these things God will bring you into judgment.
Life may be ultimately vain, but in the meantime, do your best and enjoy life. But don't forget about God either. Oh and some advice about diversification. The cabbage farmer would do well to plant carrots in the evening and the microbiologist should look into consultancy word as well brassica research.

as far as the spiritual things of God are concerned Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

2Pet 3:14 Good advice.

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

Verse 15

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood,

Verse 16. So much for just letting scripture speak for itself.

which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

verse 16 again. An interesting quotation from somone who takes verses out of context. It is also interesting that Peter uses a word found nowhere else in the NT, amathēs unlearned was a common Greek word meaning 'uneducated', to describe those most in danger of wresting scripture. It seems he my not have been as anti education and knowledge as you believe.

and which should be our only concern. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

Verse 17. Avoid people who misinterpret and twist the meaning of scripture.

But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

Amen.
Oh and that one is 2Pet 3:18. Why did you go to all the trouble of of stripping out all the scripture references in the first place?

I believe that states my position quite succinctly.

Except there wasn't a single shred of evidence in the scriptures you quoted that supported your rejection of human knowledge.

 

[gluadys]

Text: Mat 16:9 Jesus: "Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?"

Yes, the crowd was fed and there were lots of leftovers. How does that make the proposed miracle of sharing a lie?

Imagined Subtext: Jesus: "Did see how I got rid of all those losers witout feeding them? Now, that was a miracle!" (Not).

Let's not get into imagined, and very questionable, sub-texts. The crowd was fed. That's non-negotiable given the text.

The question is still why is the sharing explanation of the miracle a lie?

What textual reason is there for dismissing it as a possible way the miracle of feeding the large crowd occurred?

 

[busterdog]

Do you think Paradise Lost contains truths? Hypo clearly does not, thus making me think he thinks anything that is fictional is absolutely false.

Hypo still refuses to acknowledge my existence so we'll never know.

Is the battle of rhetoric really the battle that you want to win?

 

[busterdog]

Yes, the crowd was fed and there were lots of leftovers. How does that make the proposed miracle of sharing a lie?



Let's not get into imagined, and very questionable, sub-texts. The crowd was fed. That's non-negotiable given the text.

The question is still why is the sharing explanation of the miracle a lie?

What textual reason is there for dismissing it as a possible way the miracle of feeding the large crowd occurred?

Respectfully, I think that is another thread and we have probably strayed far enough from the OP. If you want to make it an origins issue, it would appear to be a "creative" miracle.

 

[HypoTypoSis]

Respectfully, I think that is another thread and we have probably strayed far enough from the OP. If you want to make it an origins issue, it would appear to be a "creative" miracle.

The only miracle, creative or otherwise, going on around here is all the presumed mind reading being exhibited.

 

[gluadys]

Respectfully, I think that is another thread and we have probably strayed far enough from the OP. If you want to make it an origins issue, it would appear to be a "creative" miracle.

I don't think it goes out of bounds. We began talking of metaphor and we moved on to talking about fiction. You identified this particular interpretation as "fiction that is a lie."

I would like to know what the basis is for identifying it as a lie.

You are offering the C.S. Lewis interpretation. That's fine. But not what I asked for. One can hold to that interpretation and still recognize the other as a possibility. So why characterise it as a lie?

 

[shernren]

Not sure what TE stands for but at the risk of quoting out of context, "in the beginning it was not so" in that it was not God's desire man should know the difference between the knowledge of good and evil.

However, since man screwed that up, as the saying goes, times changed.

There is human knowledge and there is scriptural knowledge and the twain shall never meet.

For all its pride filled search for truth human knowledge is incapable of finding that truth ...

Is the distinction between knowledge that God gives and that man has by his own means vague? Very often this is true.

Well, busterdog, whoever you're speaking for, it definitely isn't HypoTypoSis.

 

[busterdog]

I don't think it goes out of bounds. We began talking of metaphor and we moved on to talking about fiction. You identified this particular interpretation as "fiction that is a lie."

I would like to know what the basis is for identifying it as a lie.

You are offering the C.S. Lewis interpretation. That's fine. But not what I asked for. One can hold to that interpretation and still recognize the other as a possibility. So why characterise it as a lie?

The text is as clear as it gets. Thousands were fed. Many leftovers. Jesus said so.