Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[AV1611VET]

I already know all of that, AV. Remember, I literally have been studying the outcropping of various church disagreements and "splits" in history for about 30 years now.

But thanks for reinforcing what I already know.

I'm impressed with your level of education.

How old are you, if I may ask?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What a coincidence that we are here discussing what Jesus and the early Church thought about it. The point we are at now seems to be that unless I Corinthians 15 uniquely proves the original Apostolic belief in Penal Substitutionary Atonement it is a lie.

I don't think the truth of the Christian faith stands or falls on the Penal Substitutionary Atonement viewpoint, and I say this as one who sees value in more than one theory alone, including this one. American politics shouldn't either; but of course, we have the original 13 American colonies to thank for the continued political and religious tensions we all see today ............................................. still.

But as sad and egregious as that ongoing political and ideological tension is, I don't think that any form of Marxism or Leninism or Maoism is the answer.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm impressed with your level of education.

How old are you, if I may ask?

I used to have it posted in my personal info, back when CF allowed that. I'm 55, but I get the sense that many here think I'm a very inexperienced 25.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm impressed with your level of education.

How old are you, if I may ask?

Also, since I'm thinking about it, I think I need to make a correction to my self-report about the number of years I've been studying.

It's more like 35 years, really, and I remember that my interests in Church History and the History of Church Doctrine and Denominations was somewhat kicked off by the Gulf War which the U.S. and its allies had with Iraq in Kuwait back in 1990-1991.

And here, years later, I'm still learning....................................

 

[BCP1928]

I don't think the truth of the the Christian faith stands or falls on the Penal Substitutionary Atonement viewpoint, and I say this as one who sees value in more than one theory alone, including this one.

Yet you are scathing about Traditional Christians who regard each of the several theories as being only partial explanations for what is essentially beyond our full understanding here below.

American politics shouldn't either; but of course, we have the original 13 American colonies to thank for the continued political and religious tensions we all see today ............................................. still.

But as sad and egregious as that ongoing political and ideological tension is, I don't think that any form of Marxism or Leninism or Maoism is the answer.

Absolutely. We certainly would not want the kind of Marxist extremism which was on display at the National Cathedral last night.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yet you are scathing about Traditional Christians who regard each of the several theroies as being only partial explanations for what is essentially beyond our full understanding here below.

I'm "scathing"? Seriously. I don't think you've been aware of the breadth of discussions I actually have or have had here on these forums, BCP.

I think you're mistaking my worldview and how it comports with a certain set of interdenominational criticisms that you don't like with that of the more evangelical Christians who think that Christian nationalism is a real, live essential part of the Christian faith.

NO. What you're sensing as "scathing" is rather my philosophically laden application of Critical Thinking in historical terms for the sake of reality and truth as best any of us can ascertain as such.

It's just that I refuse to adamantly take sides and I apply the same critical sauce to everyone who serves up a plate of their own special dish. I'm an equal opportunity political cynic.

Absolutely. We certainly would not want the kind of Marxist extremism which was on display at the National Cathedral last night.

Obviously, we're not there yet. And for my part, I seek to retard the onset of either a Marxian style socialization of the U.S. or even a Christian Nationalist form of libertarianism. I have the same critical sauce for both camps, and the ONLY revolution I want to see taking place is one that reflects a more Copernican orientation and sensibility where the holding of Christian faith is concerned.

 

[roman2819]

If the weak in faith can't move mountains, those with zero faith should not expect anything.

@QvQ
Yes, I can understand that. My parent were atheist
Being raised in the church, they prayed at meals, bedtimes, in church
It was meaningless then and meaningless to them later in life
That is what they said, same as what you said

Potential of Faith: “You Can Say to this Mountain, “Move from Here to There”

Jesus was really referring to the potential of faith. He was trying to impress upon the disciples: Faith has potential to achieve much more than we think, even what we feel is impossible. The disciples did not know what faith could do; perhaps they could handle situations that were not too tough; but if the magnitude of the challenge was too daunting, then even faith would not work. However, Jesus asserted that faith could accomplish the insurmountable: Even an obstacle like the mountain could cast it into the sea – nothing would be impossible for them. These were words of emphasis, intended to overcome their sense of limitation.

Later, with faith and God’s divine guidance, the disciples set up the first churches. As they proclaimed the gospel, the Lord empowered them to heal the sick and speak in different tongues and even restored life. The miracles were intended to show that the Kingdom of God was at hand so that people would believe. And even though the disciples faced the harshest persecutions, however, they did not crumble: Faith and conviction empowered them to endure for a real and living God. After three hundred years of tribulations and hardship, Christianity was recognized as the state religion. Even after the empire collapsed, Christianity did not; and it spread to medieval Europe later. By faith and God’s divine power, the church gained a foothold on earth.

Do we always achieve success if we have faith and work hard? Athletes train to win races, singers hope to top the charts, and entrepreneurs strive to succeed in business ventures. There are other competitors who are just as determined and diligent – and they have faith too. It is not all about “my prayers”; we should appreciate that others are praying. When two teams compete, there cannot be two winners.

Prayer verses are words of encouragement, not words of guarantee. God can answer prayer, but this does not mean He will answer every prayer the way many Christians misinterpret. Many accept that the answers are 'yes, no, wait' but that is not the spirit of the words -- Jesus was not saying that. Any if we pray a lot but receive no response, weariness will set in naturally. The point is wrong notion of prayer has discouraged Christians from praying.

When Jesus said, “Believe that you have received it, and it will be yours,” our response is to literally think that it has happened, then hope that it will happen. However, such words are not meant to be enacted mentally. Words are just words, so to speak, it is the purpose that we have to grasp: “Believe … and it will be yours” is really another way of emphasizing that we should have faith. It starts with believing, and after that, we work towards it. Prayer is part of our perseverance. We can pray for our endeavours, but it is not intended to make everything easier. Neither is it a guarantee to success. God can help us when we work or pray but It does not mean He will always produce miracle or help us whenever we ask.

Somehow, many people read the Bible differently from the way they read books about engineering, business or fiction. For academic subjects, we try to grasp the fundamentals and principles – and we have to, in order to pass examinations. For fiction and novels, we try to comprehend how the story unfolds and moves along. In other words, we want to make sense of our reading. And the same applies even when we watch movies, otherwise we are just watching the screen blankly. But somehow, when it comes to the Scriptures, we change our thought process, knowingly or unknowingly. We cast aside understanding, almost totally. We read plainly and interpret words literally, superficially – without considering context or human elements.

Excerpts from 'Understanding Prayer Faith and God's Will' by Roman Ri

 

[roman2819]

You Must apply the same standard to all Historical Records.
You are propounding "Anti Sola Scriptura...IF It is in the Bible, it is Not True" because nothing in the Bible is true.
That is atheist screed but it is not good historical research

You are correct that the same standard must be applied but @Kylie shift goal posts because she is determined not to believe the truth about God. Even although scholars have proved that the Bible is credible, she will ask for more proof. She alleges that evidences archaeologists, historians, linguists that have evaluated the Bible for more than 100 years, were not credible as if she has the knowledge to evaluate their work.

Christians believe in God based on personal experience, sufficient material evidence and faith. We do not pretend to have 100% evidence for everything. Our personal experience also provide a real basis for continuing to have faith in God. Let her use clever words to claim that our faith is blind, and on judgment day, she will realize how wrong she is.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Having been away from this thread for a time... this place got weird.

 

[Aaron112]

Let her use clever words to claim that our faith is blind, and on judgment day, she will realize how wrong she is.

What if , though, from all she has seen, she is right ten, twenty , fifty, or even 95% of the time ?
The blind leading the blind and both fall into the pit, will find out one day.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Potential of Faith: “You Can Say to this Mountain, “Move from Here to There”

Jesus was really referring to the potential of faith. He was trying to impress upon the disciples: Faith has potential to achieve much more than we think, even what we feel is impossible. The disciples did not know what faith could do; perhaps they could handle situations that were not too tough; but if the magnitude of the challenge was too daunting, then even faith would not work. However, Jesus asserted that faith could accomplish the insurmountable: Even an obstacle like the mountain could cast it into the sea – nothing would be impossible for them. These were words of emphasis, intended to overcome their sense of limitation.

Later, with faith and God’s divine guidance, the disciples set up the first churches. As they proclaimed the gospel, the Lord empowered them to heal the sick and speak in different tongues and even restored life. The miracles were intended to show that the Kingdom of God was at hand so that people would believe. And even though the disciples faced the harshest persecutions, however, they did not crumble: Faith and conviction empowered them to endure for a real and living God. After three hundred years of tribulations and hardship, Christianity was recognized as the state religion. Even after the empire collapsed, Christianity did not; and it spread to medieval Europe later. By faith and God’s divine power, the church gained a foothold on earth.

Do we always achieve success if we have faith and work hard? Athletes train to win races, singers hope to top the charts, and entrepreneurs strive to succeed in business ventures. There are other competitors who are just as determined and diligent – and they have faith too. It is not all about “my prayers”; we should appreciate that others are praying. When two teams compete, there cannot be two winners.

Prayer verses are words of encouragement, not words of guarantee. God can answer prayer, but this does not mean He will answer every prayer the way many Christians misinterpret. Many accept that the answers are 'yes, no, wait' but that is not the spirit of the words -- Jesus was not saying that. Any if we pray a lot but receive no response, weariness will set in naturally. The point is wrong notion of prayer has discouraged Christians from praying.

When Jesus said, “Believe that you have received it, and it will be yours,” our response is to literally think that it has happened, then hope that it will happen. However, such words are not meant to be enacted mentally. Words are just words, so to speak, it is the purpose that we have to grasp: “Believe … and it will be yours” is really another way of emphasizing that we should have faith. It starts with believing, and after that, we work towards it. Prayer is part of our perseverance. We can pray for our endeavours, but it is not intended to make everything easier. Neither is it a guarantee to success. God can help us when we work or pray but It does not mean He will always produce miracle or help us whenever we ask.

Somehow, many people read the Bible differently from the way they read books about engineering, business or fiction. For academic subjects, we try to grasp the fundamentals and principles – and we have to, in order to pass examinations. For fiction and novels, we try to comprehend how the story unfolds and moves along. In other words, we want to make sense of our reading. And the same applies even when we watch movies, otherwise we are just watching the screen blankly. But somehow, when it comes to the Scriptures, we change our thought process, knowingly or unknowingly. We cast aside understanding, almost totally. We read plainly and interpret words literally, superficially – without considering context or human elements.

Excerpts from 'Understanding Prayer Faith and God's Will' by Roman Ri

I am not interested in your theological essays. Nor am I engaged in this off-topic material in this thread. The post you replied to was from 20 pages and 1 week ago. I am not interested in "prayer" or "faith" as both are empty concepts.

 

[BCP1928]

You are wise to stop talking in circles with @Kylie who does not want to be convinced that God exists, so she use words and shift goal posts. She alleges that evidences archaeologists, historians, linguists that have evaluated the Bible for more than 100 years, were not credible as if she has the knowledge to evaluate their work. Even although scholars have proved that the Bible is credible, she will ask for standards that cannot be met simply because she is determined not to believe.

Christians believe in God based on personal experience, sufficient material evidence and faith. We do not pretend to have 100% evidence for everything. Our personal experience also provide a real basis for continuing to have faith in God. Let her use clever words to claim that God does not exists, and on judgment day, she will realize how wrong she is.

Yet the claim under discussion is that there is sufficient material evidence to alone prove the objective truth of the resurrection, and that material evidence is what is being asked for.

 

[QvQ]

Yet the claim under discussion is that there is sufficient material evidence to alone prove the objective truth of the resurrection, and that material evidence is what is being asked for.

What material evidence do we have of Socrates? Or any ancient history?
All of it may be fiction.

 

[BCP1928]

What material evidence do we have of Socrates? Or any ancient history?
All of it may be fiction.

There is documentary material, the evidence that people believed in his existence and knew of his ideas. Evidence just like I Corinthians 15 is evidence for the resurrection. The claim was made that there was earlier evidence of a similar kind, but it has not yet been produced.

Kylie allowed that it would be satisfactory if the claim was dropped and it was admitted that there was no earlier evidence and what there was, was supplemented with faith,

Then the conversation got really weird because it was insisted upon by the claimant that if there was no earlier evidence then I Cor:15 was a fabrication, a lie. I don't understand Fundamentalist theology very well so I can't explain to you how that conclusion was reached. It makes no sense to me whatsoever.

 

[QvQ]

There is documentary material, the evidence that people believed in his existence and knew of his ideas. Evidence just like I Corinthians 15 is evidence for the resurrection. The claim was made that there was earlier evidence of a similar kind, but it has not yet been produced.

You mean by Historians or on this thread.
There are earlier sources, Q according to scholars
Q is based on research into the similarities between the Gospels, hinting at an earlier written souce Q.
If the Gosples date from 55, that would mean Q would have existed in written form within 20 +/- the Resurrection.
This is not my field of expertise.
There are men, Christians, Agnostics and Atheist who are Biblical Scholars who examine every jot and tittle of every scrap that exists.
1 Corinthians 15 and Q are the result of their research. There may be more evidence that I am not aware of.
I don't go much beyond reading about it when I run across articles about recent research.
I just take it on faith.

 

[BCP1928]

You mean by Historians or on this thread.
There are earlier sources, Q according to scholars
Q is based on research into the similarities between the Gospels, hinting at an earlier written souce.
As he Gosples date from 55, that would mean Q would have existed in written form within 20 +/- the Resurrection.
This is not my field of expertise.
There are men, Christians, Agnostics and Atheist who are Biblical Scholars who examine every jot and tittle of every scrap that exists.
Corinthians and Q are the result of their research.
I don't go much beyond reading about it than as an interested fan.
I just take it on faith.

That's the first we have heard of it in this thread. I don't know what Kylie will make of it--the most widely supported date for Mark is the late 60's--but at least it's a constructive suggestion. What I don't get is why the absence of such earlier evidence would make I Corinthians 15 a lie. Your suggestion is at least an attempt at discussion instead. Kylie has been accused of arguing dishonestly. It is beginning to seem that the dishonesty lies with others.

 

[QvQ]

the most widely supported date for Mark is the late 60's--but at least it's a constructive suggestion. What I don't get is why the absence of such earlier evidence would make I Corinthians 15 a lie. Y

The explanation I see from the Scholary researchers who read and write many ancient languages, analyse every curlique and determine whether the text is an insertion (quote) and determine who wrote what when...
Those guys:
There were written documents and verbal testimony created, collected or passed along to Paul and whoever put the Bible in the form of AD 65.
The ealier documents existed, and date from very close to the Crucifixion based on the evidence of Q, which indicated an earlier source for the Gospels.
The Gospels as written in 55-65 are a compilation of earlier source documents.
Corinthian is a special case as it is in the form of a Creed.
It is eyewitness testimony as the date of the source and language indicate factual accounting.

What little I know. There is information all over the internet about Biblical Research.
There is probably much I am not aware of ...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's the first we have heard of it in this thread. I don't know what Kylie will make of it--the most widely supported date for Mark is the late 60's--but at least it's a constructive suggestion. What I don't get is why the absence of such earlier evidence would make I Corinthians 15 a lie. Your suggestion is at least an attempt at discussion instead. Kylie has been accused of arguing dishonestly. It is beginning to seem that the dishonesty lies with others.

No, she's not equitable and shows little real sign that she's even aware of the various issues that exist in the extensive field of History, even Christian History.

This isn't to say she's not intelligent. Oh, she is, but I for one am not taking on a Burden of Proof when we can't even identify the underlying praxis that most historians rely upon.

What do I have to do to get people to actually attempt to establish an academically qualified baseline for historical inquiry? Apparently nothing since no one will cooperate anyway...................................... it's like, "Why bother?"

 

[BCP1928]

No, she's not equitable and shows little real sign that she's even aware of the various issues that exist in the extensive field of History, even Christian History.

This isn't to say she's not intelligent. Oh, she is, but I for one am not taking on a Burden of Proof when we can't even identify the underlying praxis that most historians rely upon.

What do I have to do to get people to actually attempt to establish an academically qualified baseline for historical inquiry? Apparently nothing since no one will cooperate anyway...................................... it's like, "Why bother?"

Because that is not really what this discussion is about. Take a look at QvQ'a quite reasonable post just previous. I don't quite agree with it but even so, it runs into problems within the context of this discussion, in particular the non-negotiable principles of fundamentalist theology, taken as axioms:
1. That the four Gospels were written by their attributed authors as actual eye-witnesses of the events described. Any notion of "sources" is not to be tolerated.
2. That the companions instantly understood that the death of Christ was a penal substutionary sacrifice in expiation of Original Sin
3. That any attempt to contest these principles is nothing less than a sinister attempt to deny the existence of God.
to which we can apparently now add a fourth, that if the first two are not entirely true, then I Corinthians 15 is nothing but a lie, and that the martyrs to the faith died for something they knew to be a falsehood.

Why don't you try arguing authentic Bible scholarship with these fellows and see how far you get.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The explanation I see from the Scholary researchers who read and write many ancient languages, analyse every curlique and determine whether the text is an insertion (quote) and determine who wrote what when...
Those guys:
There were written documents and verbal testimony created, collected or passed along to Paul and whoever put the Bible in the form of AD 65.

Seriously, what are you talking about? The general consensus is that the only parts that existed in anything like the current from of the canonical NT were the (7? 8?) letters of Paul.

The ealier documents existed, and date from very close to the Crucifixion based on the evidence of Q, which indicated an earlier source for the Gospels.
The Gospels as written in 55-65 are a compilation of earlier source documents.

That is not a mainstream date and other than "Luke"s claim to have used eyewitness sources, none of the others even makes that claim.

Corinthian is a special case as it is in the form of a Creed.
It is eyewitness testimony as the date of the source and language indicate factual accounting.

The last time this came up (or rather before I stopped paying attention to this "discussion") my search indicated that the "few years after the death of Jesus" is a widely held view of the "1 cor 15" creedal statement Paul incorporates into his letter. As such it testifies to the existence of the beliefs it expresses going back well before Paul wrote to the church at Corinth, possibly before Paul himself converted. It does not demonstrate the correctness of that belief, then or now.

What little I know. There is information all over the internet about Biblical Research.
There is probably much I am not aware of ...

I'm no expert by any means, but much of what you have claimed seems at odds with current, mainstream biblical scholarship.