Worldviews

[Mistagin]

from avb3 post # 568, "For your last question, I will answer by asking the same thing I asked Mistagin, who never responded

Perhaps the shortest answer to the above is how would you understand the Logos?"

Sorry I didn't respond quickly enough for ya, I have a life outside of AO, and things have been kind of busy the last few days. Oh yeah, and I do actually 'work' a few hours every Sunday morning unless my congregation gives me a Sunday off

What are you asking about the LOGOS?
Are you asking about the Greek philosophical concept?
Or the Biblical point in the Gospel of John where verse 1 says (from NT Greek manuscripts), "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος." (literal translation: In beginning was THE Word and THE Word was toward THE God and God was THE Word.)

Okay - you asked - so here it is going to get into some 'deep' and complicated thinking
(eastcoast, it might be a little too deep for you )

Note: John is equating THE Word with God, and a few verses further into the chapter John says (verse 14), "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us." This person who became flesh is the person Jesus.

Now here is an opportunity to point out that one cannot take everything in the Bible in it's literal sense: obviously a 'word' didn't become a person so it means something else - and what that is in John's gospel connects with the Greek concept of the Logos (which is ὁ λόγος in the Greek language - that's why I've included the Greek text - which shows the importance of THE Word - The Logos - it's in the text 3 times. ὁ λόγος is actually spoken as 'ho logos').

Remember, the primary language of the New Testament was koine Greek, which was the official common language of that part of the world at that time - due to the influence of the Greek Empire that was supplanted by the Romans, but the Greek language remained as a kind of functional universal language of the area in that time.

Also, I've capitalized 'THE' in the phrase 'THE Word' because the presence of 'THE' indicates how important the identity of the 'Word' is. (It's a Greek language thing . Inclusion of the definite article is for purposes of emphasis.)

In the Platonic 'school of philosophy' the intangible but inviolable concept of 'The Logos' was the 'force' or power behind reason, rational thought, logic, unity and order in the universe. The Greeks just called it 'Logos'.

John says "The Logos" is God, so what he is saying is that God is the power behind reason, logic, rationality, unity and order in the universe. And he is also saying that Jesus, through identifying Him as 'THE Word', is the human embodiment of all of that and more!

[Note: the following paragraph goes off on a bit of a tangent.
And there are those - even in this thread - who suggest people who believe the Bible and trust in the Eternal God revealed therein are anything but rational and our beliefs are illogical
However, based on John's use of the word 'Logos', it has to be said that our belief system, our Biblical worldview, is full of a kind of logic and rationality that - as John points out - supersedes any other 'worldview' due to being anchored in THE Logos Himself!
However, as 30Cal has pointed out so well in this thread, those who do not have the Spirit of God opening their minds and hearts to God's WORD are blind to Him / it, they are unable to grasp Him / it, they are unable to understand Him / it - and as has been said already, it is therefore seen to be, as the Bible says, "foolishness" to them all. But they sure like to ridicule it!
However, as God also says in the Bible, if someone honestly asks for the Spirit's help to understand it, then He will and enough understanding will come.]

Note also that John says, "In the beginning was the Word," - to those that ask where God comes from (eastcoast keeps asking this one), John is affirming the theological truth that God didn't come from anywhere - note the word 'was' - it means He already existed prior to the beginning of creation - prior to anything. God is eternal - which means He has no beginning and no end (as hard as it is for 'simple', limited-in-knowledge-and-capacity-for-understanding human beings to believe .) God is the originator of life, He is life itself, and He gives life to every living thing that He gives it too.

Another point about taking things literally that aren't supposed to be: in John 1:14 it says, The Word (Jesus) "made his dwelling among us" - to take it literally means He built a house where John lives, but it doesn't mean that - it's a way of saying using a figure of speech that Jesus lived here on earth among people as a human being in a particular place and time - thus anchored in real history. So, John is securely 'fixing' the Bible in history - this is not a metaphor, nor is it an allegorical story that could have any number of potential interpretations (the problem with both metaphor and allegory).

Now, in using the word 'Logos' here John is not just using a Greek philosophical term, he is actually drawing a connection back to Genesis 1 and 2 - the Biblical account of creation, where the point is made that everything came to be because the Eternal God created. And in John 1 the apostle is clearly saying that THE Word was there then - and in fact THE Word was/is The Creator - and since THE Word is Jesus the logical conclusion to be drawn is that Jesus was / is the Creator, and in His divinity He is therefore Eternal God. Note also how the Greek concept of THE Logos underlies the point that God's creating work is well-thought out (rational), it is logical, and it is full of order and unity.

So, in short and simple words, Jesus is the epitome and embodiment of what the Greeks called "THE Logos" - wisdom, rationality, logic, ethics, morality, etc.

John 1:1-18, in the Apostle's discussion of 'THE Logos' says a whole lot more than what it seems to say on the surface. There is probably about 5 or 6 or a dozen sermons that can be written on just that passage and all its connections to other parts of the Bible.

BTW, avb3, I'm still waiting on some clear answers on some things too - like: how does one know or determine which is the correct interpretation of a metaphor or allegory?

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by Mistagin

from avb3 post # 568, "For your last question, I will answer by asking the same thing I asked Mistagin, who never responded

Perhaps the shortest answer to the above is how would you understand the Logos?"

Sorry I didn't respond quickly enough for ya, I have a life outside of AO, and things have been kind of busy the last few days. Oh yeah, and I do actually 'work' a few hours every Sunday morning unless my congregation gives me a Sunday off

What are you asking about the LOGOS?
Are you asking about the Greek philosophical concept?
Or the Biblical point in the Gospel of John where verse 1 says (from NT Greek manuscripts), "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος." (literal translation: In beginning was THE Word and THE Word was toward THE God and God was THE Word.)

Okay - you asked - so here it is going to get into some 'deep' and complicated thinking
(eastcoast, it might be a little too deep for you )

Note: John is equating THE Word with God, and a few verses further into the chapter John says (verse 14), "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us." This person who became flesh is the person Jesus.

Now here is an opportunity to point out that one cannot take everything in the Bible in it's literal sense: obviously a 'word' didn't become a person so it means something else - and what that is in John's gospel connects with the Greek concept of the Logos (which is ὁ λόγος in the Greek language - that's why I've included the Greek text - which shows the importance of THE Word - The Logos - it's in the text 3 times. ὁ λόγος is actually spoken as 'ho logos').

Remember, the primary language of the New Testament was koine Greek, which was the official common language of that part of the world at that time - due to the influence of the Greek Empire that was supplanted by the Romans, but the Greek language remained as a kind of functional universal language of the area in that time.

Also, I've capitalized 'THE' in the phrase 'THE Word' because the presence of 'THE' indicates how important the identity of the 'Word' is. (It's a Greek language thing . Inclusion of the definite article is for purposes of emphasis.)

In the Platonic 'school of philosophy' the intangible but inviolable concept of 'The Logos' was the 'force' or power behind reason, rational thought, logic, unity and order in the universe. The Greeks just called it 'Logos'.

John says "The Logos" is God, so what he is saying is that God is the power behind reason, logic, rationality, unity and order in the universe. And he is also saying that Jesus, through identifying Him as 'THE Word', is the human embodiment of all of that and more!

[Note: the following paragraph goes off on a bit of a tangent.
And there are those - even in this thread - who suggest people who believe the Bible and trust in the Eternal God revealed therein are anything but rational and our beliefs are illogical
However, based on John's use of the word 'Logos', it has to be said that our belief system, our Biblical worldview, is full of a kind of logic and rationality that - as John points out - supersedes any other 'worldview' due to being anchored in THE Logos Himself!
However, as 30Cal has pointed out so well in this thread, those who do not have the Spirit of God opening their minds and hearts to God's WORD are blind to Him / it, they are unable to grasp Him / it, they are unable to understand Him / it - and as has been said already, it is therefore seen to be, as the Bible says, "foolishness" to them all. But they sure like to ridicule it!
However, as God also says in the Bible, if someone honestly asks for the Spirit's help to understand it, then He will and enough understanding will come.]

Note also that John says, "In the beginning was the Word," - to those that ask where God comes from (eastcoast keeps asking this one), John is affirming the theological truth that God didn't come from anywhere - note the word 'was' - it means He already existed prior to the beginning of creation - prior to anything. God is eternal - which means He has no beginning and no end (as hard as it is for 'simple', limited-in-knowledge-and-capacity-for-understanding human beings to believe .) God is the originator of life, He is life itself, and He gives life to every living thing that He gives it too.

Another point about taking things literally that aren't supposed to be: in John 1:14 it says, The Word (Jesus) "made his dwelling among us" - to take it literally means He built a house where John lives, but it doesn't mean that - it's a way of saying using a figure of speech that Jesus lived here on earth among people as a human being in a particular place and time - thus anchored in real history. So, John is securely 'fixing' the Bible in history - this is not a metaphor, nor is it an allegorical story that could have any number of potential interpretations (the problem with both metaphor and allegory).

Now, in using the word 'Logos' here John is not just using a Greek philosophical term, he is actually drawing a connection back to Genesis 1 and 2 - the Biblical account of creation, where the point is made that everything came to be because the Eternal God created. And in John 1 the apostle is clearly saying that THE Word was there then - and in fact THE Word was/is The Creator - and since THE Word is Jesus the logical conclusion to be drawn is that Jesus was / is the Creator, and in His divinity He is therefore Eternal God. Note also how the Greek concept of THE Logos underlies the point that God's creating work is well-thought out (rational), it is logical, and it is full of order and unity.

So, in short and simple words, Jesus is the epitome and embodiment of what the Greeks called "THE Logos" - wisdom, rationality, logic, ethics, morality, etc.

John 1:1-18, in the Apostle's discussion of 'THE Logos' says a whole lot more than what it seems to say on the surface. There is probably about 5 or 6 or a dozen sermons that can be written on just that passage and all its connections to other parts of the Bible.

BTW, avb3, I'm still waiting on some clear answers on some things too - like: how does one know or determine which is the correct interpretation of a metaphor or allegory?

I guess circular arguments are your thing.

[30Cal]

A good number of Historians and Archeologist use the Bible in their research because they consider the information to be reliable. In addition, there are numerous archeological findings that confirm much that has been written within the pages of the Bible. Don’t let anyone try and lead you astray, do the search and you will find.

http://israelsmessiah.com/biblical_a...iscoveries.htm

The argument by those who like to try and discredit the Bible, by saying that it is full of supposition and unfounded facts, will be to try and convince you that Science explains everything. What they won’t tell you that Science is full of theories and hypothesis, in an attempt to try and explain what they cannot understand.

Theories like that of Darwin are now rejected by most modern Scientist and Evolutionist as the “missing link has never been found”, and the beginning of life form from inorganic material cannot be replicated. In addition, Scientists are now able to show that life began all at once although they are still juggling with the time periods to try and show an old earth. They require the old earth theory to try and substantiate some type of evolving process. How many years have we been telling them that life began all at once? Did they listen…No, but at last they finally agree. And how many more years do you think it will take for them to realize this earth is not as old as they think. Hopefully it will not take them as long.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

New theories or hypothesis that Scientist are now attempting to use to justify their position include: celestial travel, amino acids…etc. Fortunately, we know that the possibility for amino acids, RNA, DNA to form in any intelligent pattern, with or without ideal conditions and regardless of how many years they would like to attribute, would be about zero; unless the hand of God is involved.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Mistagin;1310212from avb3 post # 568

, "For your last question, I will answer by asking the same thing I asked Mistagin, who never responded

Perhaps the shortest answer to the above is how would you understand the Logos?"

Sorry I didn't respond quickly enough for ya, I have a life outside of AO, and things have been kind of busy the last few days. Oh yeah, and I do actually 'work' a few hours every Sunday morning unless my congregation gives me a Sunday off*

I don't see that happening, unless,of course, there is a move to celebrate the Sabbath as defined in the OT

What are you asking about the LOGOS?*
Are you asking about the Greek philosophical concept?*
Or the Biblical point in the Gospel of John where verse 1 says (from NT Greek manuscripts), "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος." (literal translation: In beginning was THE Word and THE Word was toward THE God and God was THE Word.)*

Okay - you asked - so here it is going to get into some 'deep' and complicated thinking*
(eastcoast, it might be a little too deep for you*)

Note: John is equating THE Word with God, and a few verses further into the chapter John says (verse 14), "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us." This person who became flesh is the person Jesus.*

Now here is an opportunity to point out that one cannot take everything in the Bible in it's literal sense: obviously a 'word' didn't become a person so it means something else - and what that is in John's gospel connects with the Greek concept of the Logos (which is ὁ λόγος in the Greek language - that's why I've included the Greek text - which shows the importance of THE Word - The Logos - it's in the text 3 times. ὁ λόγος is actually spoken as 'ho logos').

Remember, the primary language of the New Testament was koine Greek, which was the official common language of that part of the world at that time - due to the influence of the Greek Empire that was supplanted by the Romans, but the Greek language remained as a kind of functional universal language of the area in that time.*

Also, I've capitalized 'THE' in the phrase 'THE Word' because the presence of 'THE' indicates how important the identity of the 'Word' is. (It's a Greek language thing*. Inclusion of the definite article is for purposes of emphasis.)

In the Platonic 'school of philosophy' the intangible but inviolable concept of 'The Logos' was the 'force' or power behind reason, rational thought, logic, unity and order in the universe. The Greeks just called it 'Logos'.

Of course, there is also the Stoic school, which suggests that the Logos is within all human beings, as well as it's reflection in the natural world. They certainly did not view it as an anthropomorphic phenomena.

The development of the Christian perspective comes from the interpretation that Philo took, which was essentially a derivative of Plato's view. As you know, Philo and Paul were very likely contemporaries, and perhaps influenced each other.

Now, it is telling that Philo viewed the OT literal only for the “unitiated”, and that those in the know should look at it in an allegorical sense.

Sort of the thing I have been saying all along if one is going to use the bible as a spiritual guide (I certainly don't count myself as one of the “initiated”, that would be presumptive).

[Note: the following paragraph goes off on a bit of a tangent.
And there are those - even in this thread - who suggest people who believe the Bible and trust in the Eternal God revealed therein are anything but rational and our beliefs are illogical**
However, based on John's use of the word 'Logos', it has to be said that our belief system, our Biblical worldview, is full of a kind of logic and rationality that - as John points out - supersedes any other 'worldview' due to being anchored in THE Logos Himself!*
However, as 30Cal has pointed out so well in this thread, those who do not have the Spirit of God opening their minds and hearts to God's WORD are blind to Him / it, they are unable to grasp Him / it, they are unable to understand Him / it - and as has been said already, it is therefore seen to be, as the Bible says, "foolishness" to them all. But they sure like to ridicule it!*

That is actully quite insulting to suggest that unless one follows the literal wording in the bible that one cannot have spiritual connection with a higher power, and for that those who have a need to anthropomorphize, call God.

Please tell me how viewing a Logos within is different from the core teachings of a plethora of ancient religions which discussed the divine essence in every human being? Isn't that what a spiritual believe system is all about? Did not the Palmist pray, “Take not thy holy spirit from me?”

That is a non-anthropomorphic spiritual view.

Let's face it, Paul was adept at adapting to the subjects he was preaching too, who were well versed and steeped in Platonic-Mystery religion cultism, which reflected a Hindu or Vedic mysticism, and no real reference to a gospel life of Jesus, right?

His allegorical teachings were more driven to the logos within, the divine in all human beings, the spiritual, and not the literal.

Paul does not refer to the historical Christ at all, yet makes significant references to Christos, or logos within.

Paul makes some interesting observations. 1 Corinthians:15 could have been written by Plato. 1 Corinthians 15:8 certainly conflicts with Acts 9:5. where Paul says he was blinded.

It is clear to me that Paul's writings were allegorical. It is also clear that an allegorical perception of teachings in the bible address a common human spirituality, rather then the rather personalization of a anthropomorphic God.

However, as God also says in the Bible, if someone honestly asks for the Spirit's help to understand it, then He will and enough understanding will come.]

Note also that John says, "In the beginning*was*the Word," - to those that ask where God comes from (eastcoast keeps asking this one), John is affirming the theological truth that God didn't come from anywhere - note the word 'was' - it means He already existed prior to the beginning of creation - prior to anything. God is*eternal*- which means He has no beginning and no end (as hard as it is for 'simple', limited-in-knowledge-and-capacity-for-understanding human beings to believe*.) God is the originator of life, He is life itself, and He gives life to every living thing that He gives it too.*

Then as you believe that God was always there, it is not a jump to suggest that the beginnings of our universe was always there is it? I mean, if a metaphysical concept can be considered to exist, why not a physical or one that consists of energy?

Is John not really trying to tie in the OT, as so many of the NT writings attempt to do? If that is the case, then it does not seem that your assumption (and that of many apologists) follows through.

The Greek term “logos” used for the creative:

Psalms 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

The Greek term “logos” used for the communicative:

Jerimiah 1:4, *Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying

Eze 1:3, The word of the LORD came expressly unto Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the river Chebar; and the hand of the LORD was there upon him.

Amos 3:1 Hear this word that the LORD hath spoken against you, O children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying,

Do you have any doubt that John did not have these in mind when he used the term?

Another point about taking things literally that aren't supposed to be: in John 1:14 it says, The Word (Jesus) "made his dwelling among us" - to take it literally means He built a house where John lives, but it doesn't mean that - it's a way of saying using a figure of speech that Jesus lived here on earth among people as a human being in a particular place and time - thus anchored in real history. So, John is securely 'fixing' the Bible in history - this is not a metaphor, nor is it an allegorical story that could have any number of potential interpretations (the problem with both metaphor and allegory).

Of course the metaphorical would say that the author of John's gospel is suggesting that the divine exists inside us all, wouldn't it? In fact, your example makes my point poignantly clear, and I can not see how a literal interpretation can possibly be taken from that.

BTW, avb3, I'm still waiting on some clear answers on some things too - like: how does one know or determine which is the correct interpretation of a metaphor or allegory?

I hope I have answered this question above. A poem can teach or provide a sentiment or thought, but no one would look at it literally, correct?

[avb3]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

.......

Theories like that of Darwin are now rejected by most modern Scientist and Evolutionist as the “missing link has never been found”, and the beginning of life form from inorganic material cannot be replicated. .......

You may be interested in this recent fossil find in a cave near Johannesburg, SA.

Of course, I am sure that there are apologist sites which already have dismissed it, but that is to be expected.

[30Cal]

Here goes again, that awful Scientific word “could be”.

Or should I say ......Here comes Lucy

http://yecheadquarters.org/shame.html
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intel...ites-the-dust/
http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner...ails_test.html

Lets wait and see what others Scientist say about these findings, if they let them examine them. I wouldn't want Professor Lee Berger making a monkey out of me for no good reason, would you?

[Mistagin]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

I guess circular arguments are your thing.

Well, we do live on a round world .

BTW: since this is a 'worldview' thread, what is your worldview?

[covey ridge]

[QUOTE=avb3;1310350]

Of course the metaphorical would say that the author of John's gospel is suggesting that the divine exists inside us all, wouldn't it? In fact, your example makes my point poignantly clear, and I can not see how a literal interpretation can possibly be taken from that.

This makes Jesus or the Christ, inclusive of all and not just exclusive to certain cults, who insist that the only way is to beleive certain things.

A poem can teach or provide a sentiment or thought, but no one would look at it literally, correct?[/

I can say Amen to that!

BTW, can anyone explain the word Amen? Maybe the left over remnants of an Egyptian religion? Sort of like el attached to the name of God in scripture? I thought El was a Cananite God as in Ba-el. Maybe some of these religios text or scriptures are cut and paste from other religionsÉ

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by Mistagin

Well, we do live on a round world .

BTW: since this is a 'worldview' thread, what is your worldview?

Actually we live on a spherical planet and every point on the planet is near equal distance to the centre

[avb3]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

Here goes again, that awful Scientific word “could be”.

Or should I say ......Here comes Lucy

http://yecheadquarters.org/shame.html
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intel...ites-the-dust/
http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner...ails_test.html

Lets wait and see what others Scientist say about these findings, if they let them examine them. I wouldn't want Professor Lee Berger making a monkey out of me for no good reason, would you?

Not sure what your non-scientific links had to do with Australopithecus sediba, but then, I am not surprised that you would offer anything else up.

Australopithecus sediba is an interesting find. Do you know how and why Prof. Lee Berger decided to look in that location?

That story is almost as interesting as the find, BTW.

[Mistagin]

.... and on we go

Originally Posted by avb3

I don't see that happening, unless,of course, there is a move to celebrate the Sabbath as defined in the OT
Ah yes, except we're in the NT era now. I'm a NT believer, us folks have Sunday as our Sabbath in commemoration of the day Jesus rose, the day when 'new life' began for God's people. OT Sabbath observances are so 'OT', except for 7th Day Adventists of course.


Of course, there is also the Stoic school, which suggests that the Logos is within all human beings, as well as it's reflection in the natural world. They certainly did not view it as an anthropomorphic phenomena.
Yes, there were several schools of philosophical thought, all of them attempting to develop a comprehensive worldview. However, the Stoic school's concept of 'reason' was somewhat different than the Aristotelian, and Platonic schools. If I remember correctly, didn't the Stoics believe the Logos was the impersonal divine principle of rational order that permeates and infuses the entire universe, therefore nothing is apart from it and it is within and part of everything? It's been a while since I studied Greek philosophy in university!

The development of the Christian perspective comes from the interpretation that Philo took, which was essentially a derivative of Plato's view. As you know, Philo and Paul were very likely contemporaries, and perhaps influenced each other.

Philo was an interesting character, a Jew who tried to bridge Jewish philosophy and Greek philosophy. He was very heavily influenced by the Stoic school. You and he would likely have gotten along very well .

Now, it is telling that Philo viewed the OT literal only for the “unitiated”, and that those in the know should look at it in an allegorical sense.

Philo also took a dual view towards the interpretation of the OT Hebrew Scriptures, some was literal which was good for addressing practical human needs, but he believed the allegorical interpretation was where the real spiritual meaning was to be found. But that was his opinion, not the opinion of everyone, least of all his countrymen in the Jewish religion.
Oh yeah, don't you think there's a bit of arrogance in the view that only the 'initiated' were capable of understanding allegorical truth!

Sort of the thing I have been saying all along if one is going to use the bible as a spiritual guide (I certainly don't count myself as one of the “initiated”, that would be presumptive).
Unfortunately that view tends to limit the extent and scope of one's search for meaning in the Bible. If most of the Bible is to be considered as allegorical, who can say for certain what the correct interpretation is? There are too many variables to 'trust' such interpretations.


That is actully quite insulting to suggest that unless one follows the literal wording in the bible that one cannot have spiritual connection with a higher power, and for that those who have a need to anthropomorphize, call God.
I didn't intend it come across as insulting, but I can understand how someone can feel that way when a Christian says the only way to have a spiritual connection with the God revealed in the Bible is to take the Bible as the Word of God. The Bible is not a generic book written to bring people into spiritual connection with a 'god'-concept. It's to teach us about a specific God, the God I believe to be the only true, non-man-made or man-invented god - of which there are certainly many. So I guess it depends on what 'god' one is trying or hoping to have a spiritual connection with.
I also suggest dropping the word "literal" out of your statement(s) because I think we've got a hang-up problem there. I don't know what you consider eligible for 'literal' status, nor do I have any idea what you might consider to be allegorical; maybe the same approach Philo took???
Note: Christians don't anthropomorphize God, we 'know' Him as He has revealed Himself - and that is not in the image of man! That would be idolatry.

Please tell me how viewing a Logos within is different from the core teachings of a plethora of ancient religions which discussed the divine essence in every human being?
No contrasting points of discussion from me here. I agree, I think every ancient religion, and many still around today, think there is something of divinity with every human being. Well, all except for 3 religions - OT Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. Also, that 'spark of the divine' may not be the same in all other ancient religions as with the concept of the Greek Logos - meaning the supreme, inviolable principle of reason.
Isn't that what a spiritual believe system is all about?
Yes and No. Some are about becoming divine, some are about living well because there is a spark of the divine preventing people from becoming wicked and evil, some are about considering the most enlightened in the system as being the top of the food chain (these folks tend to become despotic dictators)

Did not the Palmist pray, “Take not thy holy spirit from me?”
I believe the Psalmist was asking God not to abandon him. What's the Psalm (51) about? Was it not King David lamenting after his adultery with Bathsheba, the murder of her husband, and the misery produced as a result? David was sorry for His sins and pleaded with God to restore him and give him assurance that God was with him. David was basically saying, "Lord, I can't go on without you, let me know you are here with me." David was not concerned that some 'spark of the divine' would exit his body!

That is a non-anthropomorphic spiritual view.
Sorry, not sure what you mean here.

Let's face it, Paul was adept at adapting to the subjects he was preaching too, who were well versed and steeped in Platonic-Mystery religion cultism, which reflected a Hindu or Vedic mysticism, and no real reference to a gospel life of Jesus, right?
Are you saying Paul didn't believe in a literal, real, flesh and blood Jesus? What about Romans 8:11, 34; 10:9; 1 Corinthians 1:7; 8:6; 9:1; 2 Cor. 4:14; 11:4; Galatians 1:1; 3:1; Philippians 2:5-11, and a whole pile of other texts that clearly say Paul believed in a real Jesus.
Paul was adept in presenting the gospel to the subjects he preached to and taught, but he did not adapt to them. He applied the message of the gospel - salvation in and through Jesus Christ - in terms and concepts the people he addressed could understand - and build faith in Jesus on. See 1 Corinthians 9:1-23. Missionaries and preachers do the same thing. I do that every week on Sunday mornings! 1 Corinthians 1:23-24 is key to our endeavors, "but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God."


His allegorical teachings were more driven to the logos within, the divine in all human beings, the spiritual, and not the literal.
Wrong, give me examples of how his teachings are allegorical - and give me the meanings.
Paul did not believe in "the logos within, the divine in all human beings" See Romans 8.
He believed humans are human and only those to whom God gives His Holy Spirit have something of the divine within us - the Holy Spirit - who is not intrinsic to our composition - see 1 Corinthians 2:6-16 - especially verse 14, "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."

Paul does not refer to the historical Christ at all, yet makes significant references to Christos, or logos within.
See above - Paul most certainly did believe in the historical Jesus!

Paul makes some interesting observations. 1 Corinthians:15 could have been written by Plato. 1 Corinthians 15:8 certainly conflicts with Acts 9:5. where Paul says he was blinded.
Not sure what you are saying here?

It is clear to me that Paul's writings were allegorical. It is also clear that an allegorical perception of teachings in the bible address a common human spirituality, rather then the rather personalization of a anthropomorphic God.
Sooooo, you are saying you are a Philoian Stoic?



Then as you believe that God was always there, it is not a jump to suggest that the beginnings of our universe was always there is it? I mean, if a metaphysical concept can be considered to exist, why not a physical or one that consists of energy?
I think that's quite a jump. How could the beginnings of the universe be already there when the Bible in Genesis 1:1 begins with "In the beginning ..." and John's gospel begins the same way? The word 'beginning' says nothing existed prior to then - except for the 'Begin-er' (God)
I don't think God is a metaphysical concept - that's a philosophical term (as you well know), and Biblical theology says God is, to use that term anyway, a metaphysical reality. He is the nature of reality in it's most supreme sense. A Biblical worldview believes God created all physical matter and all energy, thus they had a beginning.


Is John not really trying to tie in the OT, as so many of the NT writings attempt to do? If that is the case, then it does not seem that your assumption (and that of many apologists) follows through.
Of course he was, the NT builds on the OT. It has it's roots in the OT. The Bible is one story in 2 parts hinged on Jesus Christ. The OT tells the story from the beginning of creation to Jesus, the NT tells the story from Jesus to the new creation coming. In doing so it presents a linear worldview, which, in my theological tradition, uses the paradigm, Creation - Fall - Redemption - New Creation to give a framework to the story God tells in the Bible.

The Greek term “logos” used for the creative:

Psalms 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

The Greek term “logos” used for the communicative:

Jerimiah 1:4, *Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying

Eze 1:3, The word of the LORD came expressly unto Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the river Chebar; and the hand of the LORD was there upon him.

Amos 3:1 Hear this word that the LORD hath spoken against you, O children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying,

Do you have any doubt that John did not have these in mind when he used the term?
No doubts at all - understanding that John is not thinking of the Greek concept of the Logos, he understood the creative Logos to be God - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - who were all active in creating creation - with the emphasis on the Son (Jesus) as per John 1.
And as far as the communicative Logos - again, John understood that God 'spoke' to those prophets.



Of course the metaphorical would say that the author of John's gospel is suggesting that the divine exists inside us all, wouldn't it?
If someone takes a metaphorical POV or an allegorical one, one could say it means whatever they want it to mean.
If John really believed the divine exists in all people, why does he say in John 7:39, "By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified." And how about John 14:16-17? And 15:26? And 16:13?

In fact, your example makes my point poignantly clear, and I can not see how a literal interpretation can possibly be taken from that.



I hope I have answered this question above. A poem can teach or provide a sentiment or thought, but no one would look at it literally, correct?
Correct, a poem usually is not literal. A poem is a good analogy, but it has its limitations. A poem is written by an author with, generally, one meaning in mind. But not all interpret every poem the same way. To get at the intended meaning one has to try to understand the author, the culture in which it was written, symbols in that culture and language, the historical times, etc. When I was in university English class we were assigned poems to write (I'm not a poet!!!), and then we interpreted one another's poems. Some were easy to interpret, but others were not. Often students would try linking the poems to metaphors or make them out to be allegorical - with simple metaphors we could come close with hints and clues, but when someone tried to make the poem an allegory the interpretations were invariably way off. Our professor then cautioned about using allegory as a means of interpretation, he said it was the easy way out.
One needs to do the same thing with the Bible. It's easy to just say, "Well, it can't be literal because there's a discrepancy over a date or because there's little or no archaeological evidence." It's also easy to say, "It's allegory or metaphor and it means _____________. History has shown that when it comes to interpreting the Bible that way, we end up with all kinds of conflicting meanings. So again, I have to wonder, for someone to say it is allegorical, what is the true spiritual meaning? Who do we trust to provide the right meaning?

[Tactical Lever]

Rector does not equal governor.

Really? Translate it from the original Greek. Would a rector not have a little power or influence?

Originally Posted by avb3

I'm sure this made sense to you when you wrote it, but I tried reading it again and again, and I have no idea what I was to get out of that, literally or metaphorically.

This is a parable about the impossible evolution of the giraffe. I thought I had made it clear; guess not.

The premise is that the giraffe needed that long neck to survive. Actually no it doesn't; otherwise the female giraffes would not be shorter than the males. The juveniles would be problematic in that respect as well. Not to mention that no other animal has a problem with survival even though most of the African animals are substantially shorter.

So what is the logic of the long neck? Could the same end result not be achieved with: A. longer legs B. Ability to climb or C. Flight? Instead what you believe is evolution mandated that the giraffe must have a longer neck even if it means it's death. The reason that the giraffe does not die as it stands up from a drink is because it has a special organ in it's head that regulates the blood pressure changes by having such a long neck.

So you understand now? Rather than abandon the gene for red hair (red hair meant death in my fictional village) "evolution" created a "steel neck". Silly don't you agree?

Originally Posted by beansgunsghandi

If god exists and is all-powerful then he is a psycho SOB--look around, if you were all powerful would you let this nonsense continue? A lot simpler explanation is that there is no all-powerful god, just us. Some good, some bad, do your best to be a decent human and move on.

There's no use arguing with someone who believes in something called a "god" that you can't see, can't touch, and every piece of evidence ever says doesn't exist. If you're that far gone already then logic and facts aren't really going to make much of a difference to your worldview.

Carry on believing whatever, it's a free country (unless the religious zealots start running the country like they did in Afghanistan), but believing ridiculous things is at the root of a tremendous amount of the world's problems for a long time, whether it's religion or racial superiority or whatever. We're all human, in this together, let's get past the crazy religious nonsense and work on living together.

The Bible teaches that all men are created equal in the eyes of the Lord.
In speaking to the Athenians, Paul stated that God "has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings" (Acts 17:26)

Evolution claims that we are descendants of apes or ape like creatures and some of us are less "evolved" than others and consist of "races". Hitler (who was a follower of evolution) attempted to show that by taking skull measurements and looking at skin colouring we could decide on whether or not a person was actually a "human being". He used his "logic" to exterminate 6 million people while nations of sheeple followed.

"Religious zealots" ran the country here as well back when Canada and the U.S.A. became countries. The difference is we based our values on the Bible.
Don't hear you complaining about how terrible it is to live here. By the way, women in the Bible are to be honoured and have equal rights to men. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galations 3:28).

Every piece of evidence? You are either not paying attention or looking at the wrong evidence. Helium dating, and accumulated debris on the moon's surface both support a young earth. There is a myriad of evidence that supports rather than disproves.

[jryley]

Originally Posted by Mistagin

I could tell you a story about a personal experience of being in the presence of a man I believe was under the influence of a demonic power. He verbally attacked me one day, and what I saw in his eyes was awful scary! I still get the shivers when I think about it.

......holy cow.....i honestly hope they dont let you vote come election time.

Mods please lock this thread.

[darius]

I hope someday we wiil be able to put away our fears and prejudeces and just laugh at people .

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by avb3

I notice you didn't respond to the discrepancy of two grandfathers, both on the paternal side. Guess that one we agree is a discrepancy in the "inerrant" book?

"This genealogy descends from the Davidic line through Nathan, who is an otherwise little-known son of King David, mentioned briefly in the Old Testament.[6] The intervening generations are a series of otherwise unknown names, but the number of generations is chronologically quite plausible. One of the names, Mattathias (of the 69th generation), appears to arrive at a time close to Mattathias, a leader in the Maccabees. However, Mattathias never had any son named Joseph, though he had a grandson who was also named Matthiatas, who was not included in the Maccabean dynasty and whose children were not documented. (Thus, it is plausible that the two were conflated, with the intermediary generation of Simon Maccabeus removed.)
In the ancestry of David, Luke agrees completely with the Old Testament. Cainan is included between Shelah and Arphaxad, following the Septuagint text (though omitted in the Masoretic text followed by most modern Bibles). In continuing the genealogy all the way to Adam, the progenitor of all mankind, the gospel is seen as emphasizing Jesus’s universal mission.
Augustine[7] notes that the count of generations in Luke is 77, a remarkable number symbolizing the forgiveness of all sins.[8] This count also agrees with the seventy generations from Enoch[9] set forth in the Book of Enoch, which Luke probably knew.[10] Though Luke never counts the generations as Matthew does, it appears that he too follows the hebdomadic principle of working in sevens. However, Irenaeus, one of the earliest witnesses, counts only 72 generations from Adam.[11]
Since the nature of Luke’s genealogy has made it particularly susceptible to scribal corruption, determining the original text from the manuscript evidence has been especially problematic. The most controversial section, oddly, is in the ancestry of David, which is well established in the Old Testament. Although the reading “son of Aminadab, son of Aram,” in agreement with the Old Testament, is well attested, the Nestle-Aland critical edition, considered the best authority by most modern scholars, accepts the variant “son of Aminadab, son of Admin, son of Arni,”[12] counting the 77 generations from Adam rather than God.[13]
Luke’s qualification “as was supposed” (ενομιζετο) avoids stating that Jesus was actually a son of Joseph, since his virgin birth is affirmed in the same gospel. There are, however, several interpretations of how this qualification relates to the rest of the genealogy:
Some[who?] see the remainder as the true genealogy of Joseph, despite the different genealogy given in Matthew.
Others[who?] see the lineage as a legal ancestry, rather than an ancestry according to blood—Joseph is thus a legal son of Eli, perhaps a son-in-law or adopted son.
Still others[who?] suggest that Luke is repeating an untrustworthy record without affirming its accuracy.
Lastly, some, from as early as John of Damascus, view “as was supposed of Joseph” as a parenthetical note, with Luke actually calling Jesus a son of Eli—meaning, it is then suggested, that Heli (Ηλι, Heli) is the maternal grandfather of Jesus, and Luke is actually tracing the ancestry of Jesus according to the flesh through Mary.[14] Therefore per Adam Clarke (1817), John Wesley, John Kitto and others the expression "Joseph, [ ] of Heli", without the word "son" being present in the Greek, indicates that "Joseph, of Heli" is to be read "Joseph, [son-in-law] of Heli"."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Taken from Wiki. Hopefully this contains an acceptable explanation, seeing as how Wiki is your "inerrant" source.

[Tactical Lever]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by avb3

Not circular? Look at the highlighted part of your quote above... your referencing the same book to back up your claim by referencing that book. Not circular? Huh?



The Big Bang theory keeps being substantiated the more science dwells into deep space. That being said, the speed of light certainly does not substantiate a young earth faith, does it?

"And God said: "Let there be light", and there was light." (Genesis 1:3) Why would He being an omnipotent being just create light from a point and wait a million years for it to get to the other side of the galaxy. I know what you are getting at, but it does not follow logic.

It is also becoming more and more indicative that life building blocks exist in inanimate objects. Scientists are still examining this, and no, there is no theory, yet. But there are indications that I suspect will develop into a theory (remember, theory in scientific terms is not what the vernacular understands it as).

Iron is one of the building blocks for my truck. It does not mean an asteroid will spontaneously create a truck.

Quoting for Wikipedia:

A scientific theory is a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena.[1] Scientists create scientific theories with the scientific method, when they are originally proposed as hypotheses and tested for accuracy through observations and experiments.[2] Once a hypothesis is verified, it becomes a theory.[3]

You may want to chew on this thought, also from Wikipediea:

The question of how science operates and therefore how to distinguish genuine science from pseudoscience has importance well beyond scientific circles or the academic community. In the judicial system and in public policy controversies, for example, a study's deviation from accepted scientific practice is grounds for rejecting it as junk science or pseudoscience.

However, the high public perception of science means that pseuodoscience is widespread. An advertisement in which an actor wears a white coat and product ingredients are given Greek or Latin sounding names is intended to give the impression of scientific endorsement. Richard Feynman has likened pseudoscience to cargo cults in which many of the external forms are followed, but the underlying basis is missing.

Fringe or alternative theories often present themselves with a pseudoscientific appearance.
(emphasis mine)

So you freely admit that there is such a thing as pseudoscience? Just how do you know that you are believing the right theories? What constituted a healthy diet 40 years ago? Now what about 20? How about now? It seems that the scientists involved in nutritional study, really didn't know much about it a while ago; and new evidence is quite contradictory to old theories. Do you deny that new theories sometimes displace old ones?


[QUOTE]

For your last question, I will answer by asking the same thing I asked Mistagin, who never responded

Perhaps the shortest answer to the above is how would you understand the Logos?

That's a cop out. I hope you don't mind if I do the same. Perhaps if you explain I may take a stab at it.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by jryley

......holy cow.....i honestly hope they dont let you vote come election time.

Mods please lock this thread.

Just because you have nothing to contribute....

[jryley]

What is there to contribute? Many people have
Posted valid responses to your cult like claims! You folks (and yes im type casting the select few that hump their bibles) seem to disregard proven, scientific methodology. Its disgusting. So no, i dont have anything to "contribute", due to the fact that when proven facts are posted, and as one gomer pile coined it, "what ifs" are posted in response. I went to university for 8 years in order to learn the facts so i didnt fall victim to the dog and pony show known as organized religion. I could, along with many other guys on here go on for hours about many many topics pertaining the mass brainwash effect "the church" has had over weak minded individuals for thousands of years, but it wont matter.....as your little group is so convinced that the basket that gets passed around at mass "is for the greater benefit of gods children".

I do beleive that when i die i go to a better place. Why do i beleive this? I dont know! Makes me have some sense of calmness relating
To death. But to preach the word of the most dissected and proven fictional piece of crap literature ever to grace our good earth is just flat out pathetic. Youre sheep like mentality is concerning to the future of this country. Its disgusting actually! Its not my fault, or eastcoasts fault that your little tean has the cumative education of a grade seven red headed step child!

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Mistagin

.... and on we go

Ah yes, except we're in the NT era now. I'm a NT believer, us folks have Sunday as our Sabbath in commemoration of the day Jesus rose, the day when 'new life' began for God's people. OT Sabbath observances are so 'OT', except for 7th Day Adventists of course.

Except if one looks at the bible, there is nothing in the NT that speaks to the Sabbath being moved to Sunday. Jesus was indisputably a Sabbath-keeper, which is no surprise, as he was considered a Jew. And Paul himself, worshipped on the Sabbath 'as was his custom' (Acts 17:2, Luke 4:16).

Some early Christians recognized Sunday due to the tradition of the crucifixion and resurrection, but by no means was it wide spread. In fact, it was not until the Council of Nicaea that it was codified. The tradition of the day of resurrection was one reason, but just as important was that the competing religions, especially the sun god, Sol Invictus, saw Sunday as the day of worship. And we already know how good the early Christians were in adapting pagan religious ideas and traditions.

I have a lot of disagreements with SDA's point of view, but in this case, I actually think Ellen White got it right, if one is going to follow a biblical point of view.

Yes, there were several schools of philosophical thought, all of them attempting to develop a comprehensive worldview. However, the Stoic school's concept of 'reason' was somewhat different than the Aristotelian, and Platonic schools. If I remember correctly, didn't the Stoics believe the Logos was the impersonal divine principle of rational order that permeates and infuses the entire universe, therefore nothing is apart from it and it is within and part of everything? It's been a while since I studied Greek philosophy in university!*

Perhaps the simplest difference would be to say the Stoic philosophy saw a spirituality that equates the divine with the totality of the universe, including all that is nature, whereas the Abrahamic religions personalized their view of the divine. So yes, I am agreeing with your description of Stoicism.

Philo was an interesting character, a Jew who tried to bridge Jewish philosophy and Greek philosophy. He was very heavily influenced by the Stoic school. You and he would likely have gotten along very well

I'm sure we would have had interesting discussions

Unfortunately that view tends to limit the extent and scope of one's search for meaning in the Bible. If most of the Bible is to be considered as allegorical, who can say for certain what the correct interpretation is? There are too many variables to 'trust' such interpretations.

It certainly solves the problem if trying to explain away the internal inconsistencies in the bible, though doesn't it. It seems to me, that taking the literal perspective in fact distances many humans from a spiritual message that should be transcendent. I know that is not the view of many Christian apologists, however, the evangelical teachings and leanings have, in my view, restricted the spiritual growth that would otherwise be obtainable.

Again, if the Logos from the Stoic perspective is something that should be strived for, that spiritual growth is more likely to occur as opposed to be constrained by literal teachings.

I didn't intend it come across as insulting, but I can understand how someone can feel that way when a Christian says the only way to have a spiritual connection with the God revealed in the Bible is to take the Bible as the Word of God. The Bible is not a generic book written to bring people into spiritual connection with a 'god'-concept. It's to teach us about a specific God, the God I believe to be the only true, non-man-made or man-invented god - of which there are certainly many. So I guess it depends on what 'god' one is trying or hoping to have a spiritual connection with.

But by defining God as only being an anthropomorphic concept, one is in fact constraining a larger universal spiritual greater power that the Stoics so well conceptualized. The bible can be used as a tool to discover that greater power, but so can nature be your teacher. I am not only referring to the woods and fields we hunt in or the lakes and streams we fish in, but nature that includes our earth, our solar system, our galaxy and beyond.

Taking lessons from the greater power that dominates all (some call that power God) that becomes an enlightening process that goes far beyond anything that relies on only faith. Certainly the Abrahamic religions, but also many others, chose to constrain spirituality and center it on only human perceptions and more importantly, only on human needs.

Now, that point of view certainly is in conflict with parts of the bible, especially Genesis 1:26. BTW, that is the very quote that anthropomorphizes God isn't it (make in our image).

And what is that with the “our” image. Is there more then one god?

I also suggest dropping the word "literal" out of your statement(s) because I think we've got a hang-up problem there. I don't know what you consider eligible for 'literal' status, nor do I have any idea what you might consider to be allegorical; maybe the same approach Philo took???
Note: Christians don't anthropomorphize God, we 'know' Him as He has revealed Himself - and that is not in the image of man! That would be idolatry.*

Pretty hard to not discuss a literal interpretation when so many quote literally and then justify based on literal interpretations. And as far as anthropomorphizing God, see my comment on Genesis 1:26 above. The bible itself does it for us.

Are you saying Paul didn't believe in a literal, real, flesh and blood Jesus? What about Romans 8:11, 34;

Romans 8:1 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

That does not indicate a literal or historical Jesus does it? Paul is pretty clear in this, so does it not follow that any other discussions in the same chapter are related to that viewpoint?

Paul CLEARLY states, the Jesus he is talking about is “not of after the flesh”. There is no ambiguity here. Does Paul ever talk about the “Jesus of Nazerth”? Never.

Paul was adept in presenting the gospel to the subjects he preached to and taught, but he did not adapt to them. He applied the message of the gospel - salvation in and through Jesus Christ - in terms and concepts the people he addressed could understand - and build faith in Jesus on. See 1 Corinthians 9:1-23. Missionaries and preachers do the same thing. I do that every week on Sunday mornings! 1 Corinthians 1:23-24 is key to our endeavors, "but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God."

Corinthians 9:1 Paul is discussing his vision. It's like me saying I saw a moose in my dreams. Again, the rest of the chapter is built on the vision, the spirtiual, the metaphorical.

It is strange though, isn't it that in Acts 9:8 he says he saw no one. If he saw a vision, it was spirtiual, if he saw no one, it still was a spiritual expirence. In no way was the phemona that is descriped on the road to Damascus one that details a person in the flesh, does it?

wrong, give me examples of how his teachings are allegorical - and give me the meanings.*
Paul did not believe in "the logos within, the divine in all human beings" See Romans 8.*
He believed humans are human and only those to whom God gives His Holy Spirit have something of the divine within us - the Holy Spirit - who is not intrinsic to our composition - see 1 Corinthians 2:6-16 - especially verse 14, "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."*

And yet in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul refers to the risen Christ, and says “last of all he was seen by me also”. On the surface, that would indicate that Paul was at the resurrection?. The Greek word used is “ophthe”, commonly used by many of the Mystery religions to descripe a visionary “seeing”. Conincidence?

See above - Paul most certainly did believe in the historical Jesus!

And I show why he doesn't and even if one follows the bible, why one cannot interpet the visions of Paul as anything historical; spiritual yes, but not historical. Twice in Corinthians 1, Paul states that can't really remember his visions, nor if he can really descripe them; he states “in the body or out of it, I know not; God knoweth”.

He may well have had an epiphany, but everything he says points to an inner revelation. In fact, in Galaitians 1:11 he clearly states:”For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man.” That does not talk about a historical figure at all. He goes on to say:”I received my message from no human source, and no one taught me. Instead, he received it by direct revelation from Jesus Christ”, which of course refers back to his vision.

I think that's quite a jump. How could the beginnings of the universe be already there when the Bible in Genesis 1:1 begins with "In the beginning ..." and John's gospel begins the same way? The word 'beginning' says nothing existed prior to then - except for the 'Begin-er' (God)*
I don't think God is a metaphysical concept - that's a philosophical term (as you well know), and Biblical theology says God is, to use that term anyway, a metaphysical reality. He is the nature of reality in it's most supreme sense. A Biblical worldview believes God created all physical matter and all energy, thus they had a beginning.*

But that is once again accepting the circular reference we discussed earlier. See post 562

Correct, a poem usually is not literal. A poem is a good analogy, but it has its limitations. A poem is written by an author with, generally, one meaning in mind. But not all interpret every poem the same way. To get at the intended meaning one has to try to understand the author, the culture in which it was written, symbols in that culture and language, the historical times, etc. When I was in university English class we were assigned poems to write (I'm not a poet!!!), and then we interpreted one another's poems. Some were easy to interpret, but others were not. Often students would try linking the poems to metaphors or make them out to be allegorical - with simple metaphors we could come close with hints and clues, but when someone tried to make the poem an allegory the interpretations were invariably way off. Our professor then cautioned about using allegory as a means of interpretation, he said it was the easy way out.*
One needs to do the same thing with the Bible. It's easy to just say, "Well, it can't be literal because there's a discrepancy over a date or because there's little or no archaeological evidence." It's also easy to say, "It's allegory or metaphor and it means _____________. History has shown that when it comes to interpreting the Bible that way, we end up with all kinds of conflicting meanings. So again, I have to wonder, for someone to say it is allegorical, what is the true spiritual meaning? Who do we trust to provide the right meaning?

The fact that the bible was not cobbled together until the 4th century destroyed a lot of the spiritual writings that existed at the time, and specifically the Gnostic viewpoints. Those were much more spiritual in perspective, as opposed to the literal that Constantine and his enclave insisted be the dominant philosophy. Much was lost as a result of this censorship. As a result, millions of Christians were and are taught their faith based on incomplete and arguably, tainted, scriptures. There is no doubt in my mind that the esoterical and spiritual teachings of a complete scripture would clarify that the historcracy of the bible is in fact not one, but that it's teaching are intended to be metaphorical rather then literal.

But as always, the writing of history is done by the victors. As was the bible. By man.

Some examples of metaphors from John:

John 6:47-51 “I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. I am
the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert,
yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from
heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread
that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he
will live forever….”

John 8:12 “When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light
of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness,
but will have the light of life.”

John 10:9 “I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He
will come in and go out, and find pasture.”

John 10:11-12 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his
life for the sheep. The hired hand is not ths shepherd who owns
the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the
sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and
scatters it.”

John 10:11-12 “Jesus said to her, ‘Your brother will rise again.’ Martha
answered, ‘I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the
last day.’ Jesus said to her, ‘I am the resurrection and the life.
He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and
whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe
this?’”

John 14:5-7 “Thomas said to him, ‘Lord, we don’t know where you are
going, so how can we know the way?’ Jesus answered, ‘I am
the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the
Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would
know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and
have seen him.’”

John 15:1,4 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener….
Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear
fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear
fruit unless you remain in me.
John 6:47-51 “I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. I am
the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert,
yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from
heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread
that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he
will live forever….”

Of interest are very similar "I am" statements by the Egyptian saviour, Horus:

• "I am Horus in glory...I am the Lord of Light...I am the victorious one...I am the heir of endless time...I, even I, am he that knoweth the paths of heaven."
  
• "I am Horus, the Prince of Eternity."
  
• "I am Horus who stepeth onward through eternity...Eternity and everlastingness is my name."
  
• "I am the possessor of bread in Anu. I have bread in heaven with Ra."

Interesting similarities, would you not say?

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

Really? Translate it from the original Greek. Would a rector not have a little power or influence?

I think it translates as "manager"; hardly a governor, no matter how hard apologists try and make the skewed timelines in the bible work. Quit taking it so literally, and you may actually find a spiritual awakening. Sort of like Paul did.

This is a parable about the impossible evolution of the giraffe. I thought I had made it clear; guess not.

The premise is that the giraffe needed that long neck to survive. Actually no it doesn't; otherwise the female giraffes would not be shorter than the males. The juveniles would be problematic in that respect as well. Not to mention that no other animal has a problem with survival even though most of the African animals are substantially shorter.

Huh? Moose eat swampy stuff in water (they evolved that way, deer and elk don't), giraffes eat leaves in tall trees because there is no competition there from other grassland animals. Elephants have trunks, lions manes, etc. etc. All evolved due to adaptations to their environment or to take advantage of certain things in their environment.

T

he Bible teaches that all men are created equal in the eyes of the Lord.
In speaking to the Athenians, Paul stated that God "has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings" (Acts 17:26)

Well, I am certainly glad that the bible does not talk about polygamous marriages or slavery! Even Paul urges, but does not command, Onesimus, to free his slave so Paul could use him in his ministry. That was not a servant, as I know many will come back with, it was a slave, and it was a slave in the NT.

Nice teachings in the bible, right?

"Religious zealots" ran the country here as well back when Canada and the U.S.A. became countries. The difference is we based our values on the Bible.
Don't hear you complaining about how terrible it is to live here. By the way, women in the Bible are to be honoured and have equal rights to men. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galations 3:28).

You might want to ask our native brethren about the biblical impacts both Catholic and non-Catholic Christian values in the early part of the country's history. I am not quite sure what ripping children from their families taught, but I am pretty sure some evangelical is going to tell me why it was a good thing. Or ignore it completely.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by eastcoast

I know that, I guess im a little crazy trying it inject logic into a religion debate.

Atheists know nothing of logic! Good on you for trying I guess...

There are 3 possible explanations for the origin of the universe.

Theories:

1. It has always been here.

2. It happened spontaneously with out outside influence.

3. It was created.

Answers:

1. If it was always here that would mean the universe is eternal. Being eternal, it would mean that it would have no beginning and no end.

The universe has a quantity of heat and light energy, which means it had to have a beginning. According to the laws of thermodynamics, if it did not have a beginning we would be in virtual heat death. Since we are not, the universe is has not always been here.

Theory 1. disproved.

2. If it was spontaneously created this would also violate the laws of physics: E=MC squared. This states that neither mass nor energy can be created or destroyed. Without mass there is no energy, and without energy there is no mass. The universe could no more create itself than the chair you're sitting on could create itself. Ex nihilo, nihil fit. From nothing, nothing comes.

"The big bang represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing. It represents a true miracle."
Paul Davies, evolutionist and physicist (The Edge of Infinity)

"The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing-zero, nada and as it got bigger it became filled with more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere."
Discover, Guth's Grand Guess, volume 23, 2002 p. 35

"It is fair to say, that we still have a theory without a beginning."
Joseph Silk, Ph.D astronomy and professor of astronomy at Oxford University
(The Big Bang) 2001

"Astronomers have not the slightest evidence for the supposed quantum production of the universe out of a primordial nothingness."
Sten Odenwald, Ph.D Astrophysics and chief scientist with Raytheon STX Corp at NASA Goddard space flight center (The Astrology Cafe) 1998 p. 120

There is a term for this, it's called a quantum fluctuation. It's never been observed. Otherwise known as "magic"

Theory 2. disproved.

3. Logically as we've disproved 2 out of 3 possible answers, this leaves us with only the 3rd option as being the correct one. As there are no other options this has to be the truth.

Theory 3. proven.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

"This genealogy descends from the Davidic.....

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Taken from Wiki. Hopefully this contains an acceptable explanation, seeing as how Wiki is your "inerrant" source.

Nice formatting.

Please provide the original link so I can actually read it without trying to decipher where the sentence and paragraphs are suppose to go.

Thank you.

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

Atheists know nothing of logic! Good on you for trying I guess...

There are 3 possible explanations for the origin of the universe.

Theories:

1. It has always been here.

2. It happened spontaneously with out outside influence.

3. It was created.

Answers:

1. If it was always here that would mean the universe is eternal. Being eternal, it would mean that it would have no beginning and no end.

The universe has a quantity of heat and light energy, which means it had to have a beginning. According to the laws of thermodynamics, if it did not have a beginning we would be in virtual heat death. Since we are not, the universe is has not always been here.

Theory 1. disproved.

2. If it was spontaneously created this would also violate the laws of physics: E=MC squared. This states that neither mass nor energy can be created or destroyed. Without mass there is no energy, and without energy there is no mass. The universe could no more create itself than the chair you're sitting on could create itself. Ex nihilo, nihil fit. From nothing, nothing comes.

"The big bang represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing. It represents a true miracle."
Paul Davies, evolutionist and physicist (The Edge of Infinity)

"The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing-zero, nada and as it got bigger it became filled with more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere."
Discover, Guth's Grand Guess, volume 23, 2002 p. 35

"It is fair to say, that we still have a theory without a beginning."
Joseph Silk, Ph.D astronomy and professor of astronomy at Oxford University
(The Big Bang) 2001

"Astronomers have not the slightest evidence for the supposed quantum production of the universe out of a primordial nothingness."
Sten Odenwald, Ph.D Astrophysics and chief scientist with Raytheon STX Corp at NASA Goddard space flight center (The Astrology Cafe) 1998 p. 120

There is a term for this, it's called a quantum fluctuation. It's never been observed. Otherwise known as "magic"

Theory 2. disproved.

3. Logically as we've disproved 2 out of 3 possible answers, this leaves us with only the 3rd option as being the correct one. As there are no other options this has to be the truth.

Theory 3. proven.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by jryley

What is there to contribute? Many people have
Posted valid responses to your cult like claims! You folks (and yes im type casting the select few that hump their bibles) seem to disregard proven, scientific methodology. Its disgusting. So no, i dont have anything to "contribute", due to the fact that when proven facts are posted, and as one gomer pile coined it, "what ifs" are posted in response. I went to university for 8 years in order to learn the facts so i didnt fall victim to the dog and pony show known as organized religion. I could, along with many other guys on here go on for hours about many many topics pertaining the mass brainwash effect "the church" has had over weak minded individuals for thousands of years, but it wont matter.....as your little group is so convinced that the basket that gets passed around at mass "is for the greater benefit of gods children".

I do beleive that when i die i go to a better place. Why do i beleive this? I dont know! Makes me have some sense of calmness relating
To death. But to preach the word of the most dissected and proven fictional piece of crap literature ever to grace our good earth is just flat out pathetic. Youre sheep like mentality is concerning to the future of this country. Its disgusting actually! Its not my fault, or eastcoasts fault that your little tean has the cumative education of a grade seven red headed step child!

That's 8 years worth of education?? I hope you did't pay a lot for that. Clearly they've neglected critical thinking and logistics. Not to mention spelling and sentence structure...

So you believe in heaven despite loudly and rudely proclaiming disbelief in anything related to it?

Hope the smilies help your reading comprehension.

[avb3]

[QUOTE=Tactical Lever;1311449]

"And God said: "Let there be light", and there was light." (Genesis 1:3) Why would He being an omnipotent being just create light from a point and wait a million years for it to get to the other side of the galaxy. I know what you are getting at, but it does not follow logic.

So explain to me exactly how light was created on the first day, when the sun and moon was not created until the fourth?

So you freely admit that there is such a thing as pseudoscience?

Absolutely. Creationists use it all the time.

Just how do you know that you are believing the right theories?

Do you know how scientific theories are developed? Do you know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory? Unless you have a clear understanding of how science works, don't play with words you don't fully understand.

What constituted a healthy diet 40 years ago? Now what about 20? How about now? It seems that the scientists involved in nutritional study, really didn't know much about it a while ago; and new evidence is quite contradictory to old theories. Do you deny that new theories sometimes displace old ones?

Theories are tested all the time, that is part of the scientific process. There is a pretty rigorous process that goes into the initial development of a theory, and they usually stand the test of time.

However, if new evidence emerges that alters the theory, scientists are not afraid of doing so. Anything else is intellectually dishonest.

Of course, some belief systems are quite rigid, and deny new evidence, right? I can certainly think of a couple.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by avb3

Nice formatting.

Please provide the original link so I can actually read it without trying to decipher where the sentence and paragraphs are suppose to go.

Thank you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Christ

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Christ

Thank you.

As the article states:

• A common explanation for the inconsistency of the two genealogies is that at least one of them, or possibly both, are incorrect, perhaps even fabricated.
  

• The apparent contradiction of the two gospel genealogies has aroused controversy since ancient times, although modern scholars tend to view the genealogies as theological craftsmanship rather than historical fact.

• Since the nature of Luke’s genealogy has made it particularly susceptible to scribal corruption, determining the original text from the manuscript evidence has been especially problematic.

My point has been well made, but I could go on if need be. You do know though that Jewish law determines genealogy through the father, and not the mother, right? Mary's genealogy is completely irrelevant.

[Tactical Lever]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by avb3

I think it translates as "manager"; hardly a governor, no matter how hard apologists try and make the skewed timelines in the bible work. Quit taking it so literally, and you may actually find a spiritual awakening. Sort of like Paul did.

No matter what you think, Greek to old English doesn't translate perfectly. I'm surprised that you aren't denying that he was a rector.

I am not a 1/10 the man Paul was, but it does give to something to work towards.

Huh? Moose eat swampy stuff in water (they evolved that way, deer and elk don't), giraffes eat leaves in tall trees because there is no competition there from other grassland animals. Elephants have trunks, lions manes, etc. etc. All evolved due to adaptations to their environment or to take advantage of certain things in their environment.

If that was the case giraffes would have died out. You don't seem to grasp the improbability that it developed a form that would kill it, unless it simultaneously developed an organ to prevent that. And this is a specialized organ, not an accident.

T

Well, I am certainly glad that the bible does not talk about polygamous marriages or slavery! Even Paul urges, but does not command, Onesimus, to free his slave so Paul could use him in his ministry. That was not a servant, as I know many will come back with, it was a slave, and it was a slave in the NT.

Nice teachings in the bible, right?

So Paul should not have exhorted him to release his slave?


[QUOTE]You might want to ask our native brethren about the biblical impacts both Catholic and non-Catholic Christian values in the early part of the country's history. I am not quite sure what ripping children from their families taught, but I am pretty sure some evangelical is going to tell me why it was a good thing. Or ignore it completely.Yes, pretty sure that they were not following the Bible. Same as many that profess to be Christian now.

[Okotokian]

Well boys and girls, hats off to you for running a thread that is tremendously long, thoughtful, complicated (Advil-level complicated) and relatively anger and insult free!

Mind you, too many more threads like this and nobody will bother logging on to the board anymore. LOL

[jryley]

Originally Posted by Tactical Lever

That's 8 years worth of education?? I hope you did't pay a lot for that. Clearly they've neglected critical thinking and logistics. Not to mention spelling and sentence structure...

So you believe in heaven despite loudly and rudely proclaiming disbelief in anything related to it?

Hope the smilies help your reading comprehension.

Yep. You bet it is pal. My apologies for the spelling? Iphones dont help the cause. I never once said i believe in heaven. And by my own admission, i believe that sure, ill be watching over my family. But i never once stated heaven. Pagans believed the same....we all know what happened when the church voiced their opinion on that establishment though dont we? Again pal, you know not what you speak of.

A little lesson in logic regarding your "theory" of creation. "eliminating" a set of theories does not in turn equate to the remaining proof holding valid unless you have premise to support your proof.....which you dont. Do you have any sense of how silly you sound? The only answer you support for ANYTHING is "its gods plan". How do you discount the thousands of other beleifs held by many maaaany other civilizations that inhabited this planet many maaaaany years before bible thumpers began righteously cultivating civilization to their own liking? Were they out to lunch? ooooo geez, my bad, i forgot it was all gods plan. How dumb of me. Explain to me, why the richest organization in the world needs to pass a basket around and collect hard earned dollars from their followers? It is a disgusting twisted method of investors remorse the church uses to entrap its followers. I have the utmost respect for those that attend a following simply because it puts a smile on their face. However, they also acknowledge the fact their "bible" really doesnt prove anything. And they understand that modern science really has disproven pretty much everything the ever changing bible states. And i cant stress ever changing enough. These people i respect. But the blind, manson/warren jeffs-esque type followers are just a sad sad state of affairs. Open your eyes bud is all i can say.