Most writers and readers of this site will be familiar with a man called Mike Paget. He reasonably represents Sydney Anglican attitude which really needs a clean out from the Diocese. I had great disappointment with him about this time last year, principally because he told me an untruth. He said he would return from the CMS Summer Camp and resume dialogue on a matter of importance to me. He did not honour his word, he did not return, he did not give any reason.
Mike Paget also defends the unbiblical position taken by the Sydney Anglican Diocese on the Creation account and will not entertain criticism of what some writers here regard as a proud or elevated view many Sydney Anglicans have of their Diocese and its institutions.
This sydneyanglicanheretics blogspot is an anathema to them. We have the 'hide' to criticise their way and, in retaliation, it means little for them to misrepresent us to others.
It has been pointed out to me that Mike Paget recently went onto a blogger site run by atheists in Sydney and said the following: "BTW, I've met Sydney Anglican Heretics crew online, and it was a most unpleasant experience. I can assure you that they're not so much rattled as gleeful that you had a bigger presence at the Festival than Anglican Christians."
This is in response to Sam Drucker's blog here concerning his observation of no presence of Diocesan representatives at Newtown Festival. Sam's blog was apparently noticed by the atheists. Mike Paget's comments are a misrepresentation of our position. We are not gleeful at the sorry state of evangelism in the Sydney Anglican Diocese. We are instead grieved. A few of us are Sydney Anglicans and are grieved at how the Diocese has stepped away from God and toward man. This will have disastrous consequences and we see elements of this in the lacklustre commitment to evangelism within the Diocese on the eve of Connect 09. This is not a matter for glee! Atheists 'outevangelising' Christians is cause for concern.
Instead of acknowledging and acting positively on our 'wake up call' the Diocese has chosen, like Israel did with Jeremiah, to disdain and ignore the messenger. I wonder whether they might even attempt some form of 'doing away' with the messenger.
Such actions only demonstrate some parallels with the history of Israel.
Take your medicine Mike Paget & Co. Repent and believe on the Word of God and don't go running off to form some form of allegiance with atheists against us.
Neil
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
151 comments:
It's a little presumptuous to label yourself a 'wake up call', especially when you advocate something as anachronistic and unhelpful as creationism.
Criticising a brother member of your Diocese alone is bad enough, criticising him for adhering to the teachings of said Diocese is downright unfaithful.
God did not give you a brain to throw it away on the 'God just went click' theory of the universe and he certainly didn't give it to you to be devisive in his church.
Surely there are more constructive things to be concerned about.
Could you please tell us what the "unbiblical position taken by the Sydney Anglican Diocese [/ Mike]" is and what the real biblical position is?
Earth age position: 6000 years/Youngish/Old/Omphalists position/other ??
God's method: Theistic Evolutionists/Evolutionary Creationists/Progressive Creationists/Day-Age Creationists/Gap Creationists/other ??
Thanks!
To "Websinthe", whether it is the seven churches of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea or an Anglican Diocese such as Sydney a departure from trust in the Word of God is the act of unfaithfulness. It is not my criticism of this act that is the "unfaithfulness".
When you entertain anything that is alien to God's clear utterance "For in six days the LORD created the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them ..." (Ex 20:11) you are being unfaithful to the Word of God. There can be no doubt here because you also have Gen 1 and Ex 31:17 providing clear support.
You only need look to God Incarnate in Jesus Christ to see the Creator because His instantaneous recreative acts (deemed miracles) are a reflection of His creative acts in the beginning.
The great failing of so many in the Diocese (and I see it emerging in your response to my blog) is to push the issue of Jesus Christ's revelation of Himself in Creation to the sideline of irrelevance. In so doing you open the door to abhorrent beliefs such as God introducing death into "everything that has the breath of life" before sin entered the world. At this point you commence eroding the gospel and present a mangled Jesus Christ to the world.
Quite honestly, I have serious doubts that the LORD will honour the Connect 09 wishes of the Diocese when such a distorted representation of Him is being presented by the Diocese. I hope I am wrong for the sake of the lost. However, I put to you that in twelve months time we ought to be dialoguing to evaluate who is wrong and who needs to repent. You have this in your favour though, the LORD is greater in mercy and forgiveness than we here and He just might be prepared to work around your distrust just to save some of the lost.
To "Peter" I say, I guess you have grasped where I am coming from because of my aforesaid words. I find no way that the utterance of God recorded at Ex 20:11 can accommodate theistic evolution, gap or day age theories or prgressive creationist positions. A reasonable application of the genealogies recorded in 1 Chron and Luke 3 arrives at an age of the earth measuring in the thousands rather than millions or billionsof years. That is the outcome of accepting statements within historical narrative of the Bible. If you wish to discuss observations from the world around us then I am quite willing to oblige.
Neil
On God's behalf I am offended by worldly, ignorant, webboy.
God begins his story with a clear and concise description of His unlimited power-power unlimited by time or scale.
He defines day twice, in Genesis 1, as approximately 24 hours then repeats this day-length in the 10 commandments.
But that isn't good enough for webboy, he knows better!
Gods awesome power to create by His spoken word or very thought in the 'God just went click' style is littered throughout the OT.
But that isn't good enough for webboy, he knows better!
He chooses to confirm, in the NT that He is creator having Jesus and the apostles quote from or allude to Genesis 1-11, as historical fact, as written, no less than 107 times.
But that isn't good enough for webboy, he knows better!.
In fact Jesus, the Creator, says man was made at the beginning of this creation in which we live but webboy says no way.
That isn't good enough for webboy, he knows better!
Jesus reserved such insults as 'a synagogue of satan', or 'whitewashed walls' for those who opposed the truth of scripture. In righteous indignation I truly feel like making up my own insulting term for you webboy but will leave that to Jesus, when he judges you, by your faith in His word. You will see the error of your ways, too late, when you stand before Him, having called Him a liar.
What more important thing than God's Truth is there to be concerned about! Attempting to ridicule those who trust His word, and His Word no doubt.
Neil,
I wouldn't bother about Websinthe aka Kieran Salsone. He's just some punk kid know-it-all who spends far too much time playing computer games (read his blog!). Hopefully when he's put on a few decades and hits puberty he may take life seriously and actually address the issues of origins with objectivity. But until then he's a time-waster who thinks we're sport. (Again, read his blog and he admits he's just come on here to be annoying.)
BTW, Keiran, lad, the Catholic position on origins until quite recently was the young earth one.
John, thanks for your advice. I'll go to bed and allow Webboy (as Warwick calls him) to wander aimlessly around cyberspace.
Good Night,
Neil
Thanks Neil,
I would be happy to hear the observations from the world around us which point to young earth.
Warwick,
Where do you get the "Jesus, the Creator"? My Bible starts "reshiyth Elohiym..." (Gen 1:1) and continues "shesh yowm Yehovah..." (Ex 20:11). There seem to be no reference to Jesus.
Can anyone answer my previous questions please?
Peter, it should be obvious: try John 1:1-3: "... All things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made," and Col. 1:16, "For by him [Jesus] were all things created ..."
Ktisophilos,
John 1:2-3 seem to be "..God [theos], All things were made by him [autos]...". I can not see Jesus in there...
In my Bible it says "For in him were all things created in heaven and on earth..." (Col 1:16) the Greek word "en" is mostly translated in English as "in" not "by". So this really does not seem to say Jesus created the world.
Even if you are right are Gen 1:1 and Ex 20:11 wrong?
Peter do you believe in the trinity? And do you believe Jesus is part of this trinity, part of the Godhead?
Is this a leading question of course it is but I trust it will lead to the truth.
Peter,
You left out the preceding piece of information and thus misrepresented what the Gospel writer John had written. I refer you to the whole text from which Kt quoted:
Verse 1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word.”
The Word is the subject of this verse. As all Christians uphold, the Word is Jesus.
Verse 2: “This one [i.e. the Word] was in the beginning with God.”
Verse 3: “All things through him [referring back to ‘this one’] came to be, and without him[referring back to ‘this one’] came to be not even one thing which has come to be.”
Verse 4: “In him[referring back to ‘this one’] life was and the life was the light of men.”
Verse 5: “And the light in the darkness shines and the darkness it did not comprehend.”
Verse 6: “There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.”
Verse 7: “This man came for a testimony so that he might testify about the light [the same light of v 4 who also is equated ‘this one’ and ‘the Word’] so that all people might believe through him.”
As you should now understand, the Light is him whom all things were created and is the Word.
In any case, inter alia Colossians 1:15-16 makes it quite plain that Jesus is the Creator. Your understanding of ‘en’ is mistaken. It is a primary preposition denoting instrumentality. That is, by or through Jesus, the creation came about. On any account, that is what a Creator is. This in no way is excluding either the Father or Spirit as Creator too.
Can you explain what Jesus’ role apropos Colossians is given that you believe en should be translated as ‘in’? How are all things created in him? What does this mean?
Warrick,
I would have to go with early Christians and say no to Trinity. Even Jesus never taught about it so it can not be an important thing.
Tell me where that leads, but use the Bible, not some late interpolation. Trinity does not seem to be in the Bible...
Peter the name's Warwick1
Peter the fact that the word 'trinity' is not in Bible is irrelevant as neither is infanticide.
I think John has more than adequately shown the error of your reasoning about John 1-3.
Do you believe Jesus claimed to be God?
Or Warwick rather.
John,
Sorry if I misinterpret it. Are you saying God created everything through Jesus (verse 3)? If you replace "Word" with "Jesus", the verse is difficult to understand. Logos is of course a pre-Christian pagan idea of "word of God", Christians just adopted this idea.
Regarding Col 1:15-16. Many Bibles including ASV, DRB, ERV, WNT and YLT have Greek "en" as "in" and often more difficult interpretation is the right one. And no, I don't know what Jesus' role was or what that means. Genesis and Exodus does not seem to give him a role...
Warwick,
Sorry about my spelling. Many people have claimed to be son of Man, son of God, God, father of God; claims are irrelevant. Who knows if Jesus claimed to be God, Bible does not seem to indicate that. Most early Christians did not believe he was a God, just that Jesus was adopted as "son" of God, like many other biblical people. Trinity was invented much later. BTW Infanticide is actually ordered by God in the Bible (1 Samuel 15:3) so it is not irrelevant. Re: trinity not mentioned in the Bible; What other supernatural non-biblical things do you believe in?
Neil,
You seem to have claimed that a person in a Anglican Church does not hold a Biblical view, without telling us exactly what the real Biblical view is. I think it would be fair after your attack to give us an answer (1 Peter 3:15).
Peter if Jesus did not claim to be God what was he executed for?
The word trinity is not in Scripture but the concept most definitely is. Neither is the word infanticide in Scripture but the concept surely is.
Warwick,
Sanhedrin never met on the eve of the passover and Romans did not care if someone claimed to be God. Jews did not mind that much is someone claimed to be a Messiah, so what is your theory?
Warwick wrote:
"The word trinity is not in Scripture but the concept most definitely is. Neither is the word infanticide in Scripture but the concept surely is."
It is bad comparison:
Infanticide is in the Scripture.
Trinity is a pre-Christian pagan concept that early Christians did not see in the Scripture, fourth century Christians voted on it and scribes changed the Scriptures to incorporate it in. For example Jehovah's Witnesses went back to the original text and rejected Trinity.
Peter the question you ducked was: 'Peter if Jesus did not claim to be God what was he executed for?'
To make it simple: Jesus was executed. He was executed for a reason. What was that reason?
So you are saying the word 'infanticide' is in Scripture but 'trinity' isn't right?
BTW what happened to healyhat man?
Warwick,
You have not answered my questions, but claim I ducked a question... hmmm...
I just don't know if Jesus was executed and for what reason if he was. The word of God clearly stated he was not executed (Quran, Surah 4:157).
Let me clarify:
- God's clear order and his followers action to systematically kill kids is in the Bible.
- "God exists as three [two, three or more] persons, but is one being" is not in the Bible. The Bible is clear about this (Deuteronomy 6:4).
Peter I believe you have told us all we need to know. You quote from that hateful book of commanded violence as if it were the word of God, rather than the ravings of a monster, that it is.
Those who were there, and gave witnesss, say Jesus was executed for blasphemy, as John 10:33 (and elsewhere) ably shows.
In true form you will surely say that this and other verses, which testify to Jesus' divinity, were later additions. Remember the whole of the Koran is a later addition and a book which to this day commands that its followers commit violence and death upon any who do not submit- we see such hate everyday, only recently in Mumbai.
Conversely Muhammad was not there when Jesus was crucified, not bobbing up till more than 600 years had passed. Therefore what that child molester wrote is irrelevant distorted hearsay.
Do I therefore hate Muslims? In no way, but am convinced they are Islams sad victims, who desperately need Jesus' forgiveness.
Peter,
Please tell us what you DO believe in, not what you DON'T believe.
What is it with this blog. Everyone is asking questions and nobody is answering..
Warwick said...
"Peter I believe you have told us all we need to know. You quote from that hateful book of commanded violence..."
I agree that Deuteronomy is a difficult book to read because of all the killing it requires, but I guess it is OK if you ignore them. ;-)
Warwick said...
Remember the whole of the Koran is a later addition and a book which to this day commands that its followers commit violence...
Remember the whole of the New Testament is a later addition and a book which to this day commands that its followers commit violence...
Warwick said...
Muhammad was not there when Jesus was crucified
Paul was not there either. Divine vision (and oral tradition) was enough for both of them.
John,
That's a bit off topic. I came here find out what the biblical position of the creation is...
Peter, I apologise for being slow to get back to you. I have been resolving some domestic situations over the past 24 hours. All is well now.
The rate of decay in the earth's magnetic field points to an age of the earth measuring in the thousands. Dr Thomas Barnes' Foundations of Electricity and Magnetism, 1977 produced research giving rise to this observation. Determined 'long-agers' resorted to an imagined self sustaining dynamo to counter the consequences of Dr Barnes' findings yet the proof is in what has been actually observed. Some opponents questioned the rate of decay but Dr Russell Humphreys 'The Earth's Magnetic Field is Still Losing Energy' SRSQ 39(!) 1-11, March 2002, refutes these objections.
It is generally believed that Helium is the product alpha-decay of radioactive elements in rocks. Helium, being a light, inert gas would diffuse from the rocks well under millions of years but the finding of an abundance of Helium in the granites around the world presents difficulties for a long age view of the earth. Dr Russell Humphreys and the RATE team published research 'Nuclear Decay: Evidence for a Young World,' Impact 352 0ctober 2002) pointing to a young earth explanation for the Helium in the granites.
The amount of salt pouring into the sea in excess of the rate that it escapes from the sea has led to an observation that the earth can only be something measuring in the thousands of years for its age, particularly when allowing for a catastrophe such as global flood. Dr Jonathon Sarfati's essay 'Salty Seas Evidence for a Young Earth,' Creation Magazine 21(1):16-17 (Dec 1998 - Feb 1999) summarises the work done on this project.
Super Nova Remnants (SNR's) are the result of exploding stars. According to physical equations an SNR should expand for hundreds of thousands of years. There are 3 stages of expansion and scientists are able to observe what stage an SNR is in. The first stage is believed to last 300 years; the second, 300 years to 120,000 years and the third stage beyond 120,000 years. Scientists have observed SNR's and the results have surprised them. There are 5 found in stage one, 200 in stage two and 0 in stage three. What this means is that there are no SNR's potentially dating in the millions of years yet 205 (5 + 200) in the up to 120,000 years old. I might add that the 200 in stage three might be at the lower end of the scale. D.H. Clark and J.L. Caswell's work 'A Study of Galactic Supernova Remnants, Based on Molonglo-Parkes Observational Data,' in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 174:267-306 (1976) is the source.
The loss of mass from Comets is at such a rate that they could not be billions or millions of years old. The measure better fits thousands of years. An imagined Oort Cloud where replenishing of Comets occurs is the futile explanation of 'long-agers' but there has never been an Oort Cloud actually observed.
The rate of recession of the moon from the earth is such that if the moon were at one stage actually touching the earth then receding from that position only 1.37 billion years would have passed - far to young for the proposed age of the earth by the prevailing world view. The 1.37 billion years is an absolute maximum and presumes the earth and moon were once touching. A much younger age is produced if the two bodies were separate by such a distance for the moon to have its observed effects on earth.
The finding of red blood cells in partially fossilised T-rex bone by Mary Schweitzer in the 1990's (see comments in an earlier post) is, I think further evidence of the inaccuracy of popular dating methods. The blood cells would not last the millions of years between when dinosaurs have been alleged to have existed and today.
There are other observations pointing to a young earth (in the thousands) and you can access these from Dr Jonathon Sarfati's book 'Refuting Compromise' Master Books, 2004. A search engine exists at www.CreationOnTheWeb.com and you can derive more information there.
Of further interest to me of late is the research of Dr J.C. Sanders 'Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome' FMS Publications, 2005. Dr Sanders developed the 'Gene Gun' and his observation of the rate of multiplication of mutations in the human genome has led him to believe that the biblical time line for humanity is reliable.
I apologise for the length of this reply but I guess you might, in some respects, think I haven't said enough.
I presume that your question you want answered is what unbiblical teaching is coming form the Sydney Anglican Diocese. I will answer that but if I have misunderstood what your question is (because you asked a couple) then please let me know.
The unbiblical teaching (which dominates but not is not absolute) is that the chronology of the Bible which produces an age of the earth measuring around six thousand years and that God created the heavens, the earth, the sea and all that is in them in six days approximating to the duration of days as we experience them, is not as plainly read. The plain reading and understanding has been the teaching of the majority of Christians in the early Church, the Reformers and Puritans. The Sydney Anglican Diocese has departed from this position. In so doing the Diocese, by majority, has opened the door to unbelief and presents a distorted Jesus Christ to the world.
Neil
Peter a few comments:
'What is it with this blog. Everyone is asking questions and nobody is answering..'
Peter numerous people have appeared on this site, appearing very sincere, asking what we believe. One an all, they have said they just want to know/learn/understand. One and all they were found to have an agenda, disclosing that they weren't genuine after all. Things you have written appear to place you in their camp. BUT maybe you are the genuine one?
Warwick said...
"Peter I believe you have told us all we need to know. You quote from that hateful book of commanded violence..."
'I agree that Deuteronomy is a difficult book to read because of all the killing it requires, but I guess it is OK if you ignore them. ;-)'
Peter, the Koran continues to demand violence from its followers, today. We see the murderous results world-wide where those the Koran describes as 'infidels' are murdered on a daliy basis, in strict obedience to the Koran.
Compare the explicit commanded violence of the Koran-i.e. Surah 4;89,47:4, 9;123, & 8:67- with Jesus' Sermon on the Mount and if you are open to truth you will see the absolute difference. We are Christians saved by the grace of God, through the finished work of Jesus upon the cross. It is Jesus we follow. Jesus tells us that even thinking of murdering someone is equal to murder.
Muhammad commands that his followers slaughter any who will not submit. A little different?
Warwick said...
Remember the whole of the Koran is a later addition and a book which to this day commands that its followers commit violence...
Peter the NT is a later addition to what? To the events described therein and written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, mostly by eye-witnesses and during the lives of eye-witnesses?
Warwick said...
Muhammad was not there when Jesus was crucified
Paul was not there either. Divine vision (and oral tradition) was enough for both of them.
1)Paul met the risen Lord. Did Muhammad? Paul also met the apostles, and disciples,eye-witnesses. Did Peter, for example need oral tradition to know what he had seen and witnessed with Jesus?
What oral tradition did Muhammad have?
You say the NT 'commands that its followers commit violence...' Pray tell, where?
Peter you say I didn't answer your question? What was the question?
Peter,
I’ve just read your most recent comment and you’ve stated that my comments are off the topic. Not really, mate, as you keep on throwing in completely unsupported assertions. Not once have you deemed it appropriate to back up your wild claims with documentation. As all of us have previously heard these specific claims before from others – again without the slightest historical support - it seems incumbent upon me to demonstrate why your assertions are false. If your desire was to discuss creationism, why did you raise these other issues in the first instance?
As I don’t think they’re off the topic, I’m going ahead with showing why you shouldn’t use them as evidence.
Let me ask you straight up: Are you a Muslim?
1. Peter said: “I just don't know if Jesus was executed and for what reason if he was. The word of God clearly stated he was not executed (Quran, Surah 4:157).”
As Warwick asked, why would you believe the Koran a book written more than 500 years after New Testament, rather than the actual historical eyewitness accounts of the events of Jesus’ life?
In fact, according to Islam’s own standard, the Koran is perfect and thus must be from God, yet it’s filled with grammar errors IN ARABIC. If it’s filled with such errors, how can it be from God?
Furthermore, as the disciple John, who was an actual witness to these events, not an Arab named Muhammad who lived hundreds of miles away, hundreds of years after the event, stated, “But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his leg. But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you may believe.” (John 19:33-35)
2. Peter said: “Jews did not mind that much is someone claimed to be a Messiah”
What is your source for this claim?
In any case, the Gospels record that the ruling Jewish elite objected to Christ’s claim to being God. For example, in Exodus 3:14 Moses meets God from the midst of a burning bush (surely a higher form of inspiration than Muhammad who only supposedly receive it through an intermediary) and he asks God what his name is in order to tell the Israelites. God replies, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” In John 8: 48ff the Jews laugh at Jesus’ claim that Abraham saw Jesus’ day. In order to back up his claim that Jesus wasn’t literally born “yesterday”, he states, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” They then took up stones to throw at him.”
Unless you understand that Jesus was claiming to be the very Person who spoke to Moses and that the Jews understood this, their next act of trying to “lynch” him doesn’t make sense. Jesus clearly claimed to be God.
3. Peter said: “I would have to go with early Christians and say no to Trinity. Even Jesus never taught about it so it can not be an important thing.”
This is clearly not true, Peter. The early Christian apologists DID call Jesus God. The following serve as evidence.
a. Ignatius (30-107), disciple of Peter, Paul and John, bishop of the church at Antioch, wrote before his martyrdom by being thrown to the lions at Rome, “For our God Jesus Christ, was according to the appointment, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost.” Also, “Our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, first did and then taught, as Luke testifies, “whosepraise is in the Gospel through all the Churches.” Plus, “Abstain from the poison of the heretics….They are ashamed of His cross, they deny his passion, and they do not believe His resurrection…Some of them say that the Son is a mere man…and that the creation is the work of God, not by Christ.” Oh yeh, one more, “Jesus Christ…was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died in the sight of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the earth, who moreover was truly raised from the dead, His Father having raised Him.”
b. Justin Martyr (110-165) stated, “For Christ is King, and Priest, and God and Lord.”
c. Irenaeus (120-202) wrote, “In order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour…”
d. Tertullian (c.177) wrote, “For the very Church itself is, properly and principally, the Spirit Himself, in whom is the Trinity of the One Divinity – Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” And speaking of Christ, he writes, “that which has come forth out of God is at once God and the Son of God, and the two are one.”
e. Origen (b. 185) writes, “From all which we learn that the person of the Holy Spirit was of such authority and dignity, that saving baptism was not complete except by the authority of the most excellent Trinity of them all i.e. by the naming of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and by joining to the unbegotten God the Father, and to His only-begotten Son, the name also of the Holy Spirit.”
4. Peter said: “If you replace "Word" with "Jesus", the verse is difficult to understand. Logos is of course a pre-Christian pagan idea of "word of God", Christians just adopted this idea.”
Can you explain your difficulty?
‘Logos’ is merely the Greek word which seems to match up well with what the Gospel writer John was saying about Jesus. It can be translated into English as ‘information’, ‘concept’ ‘rationality’, ‘expression’ etc.
By pre-Christian if you mean the Stoics I’d have to disagree. Logos in Stoicism really had little in common with Christian understanding. You can do your own research on that. May I suggest you read the “original” documents. A.A. Long is a good compiler to start with.
It clearly has its origin in early Jewish thought when it can be seen to be present in many of the prophets of the Old Testament. For example in Jeremiah 2:1-2, “The word of the LORD came to me: "Go and proclaim in the hearing of Jerusalem”, Ezekiel 11:14
“Again the word of the LORD came to me, saying,”, and Micah 4:2 “Many nations shall come and say, “ Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, To the house of the God of Jacob; He will teach us His ways, And we shall walk in His paths.” For out of Zion the law shall go forth, And the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.” The Targums also make make of this ‘Word’.
The key is understanding what John went on to say in his Gospel i.e. “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” (1:14) That is the true expression or information of God became human and lived on Earth as a man. Nothing is impossible for God and yet you, a mere man, deny this to God.
5. Peter comments: “Regarding Col 1:15-16. Many Bibles including ASV, DRB, ERV, WNT and YLT have Greek "en" as "in" and often more difficult interpretation is the right one. And no, I don't know what Jesus' role was or what that means.”
This “rule”, ‘more difficult interpretation = the right one’, ahh, where did you obtain that information? I think you just invented it.
And as for your other English translation, did you not read the concluding sentence of verse 16 in each of them? They all claim that “all things have been created through him.” As I said, the proposition ‘en’ is one addressing locality and time but also, as in Colossians, one used to communicate instrumentality. The first function of ‘en’ isn’t suitable in Colossians and MUST be understood as by what means the creation came into existence i.e. BY Jesus.
The fact that you admit not knowing the meaning here hardly serves as evidence that your denial of Jesus’ being creator is correct. I believe we have adequately proved our case that Jesus is creator. The ball is in your court, Peter.
Hi Neil,
Thanks for the answer. I understand the family must come first. Good to hear all is OK.
Honorary Doctor Thomas Barnes argued against the Einstein's theory and did not use the known data from earths magnetic field variations. For example we do know that earth's magnetic field was weaker 550000000 years ago. Real scientists seem to dismiss his theories. This sounds like an argument of ignorance.
Regarding Helium, you should ask Mike. He is a physicist and should be able to explain this to you.
Regarding ocean salt; The salt amount seem to have been quite stable for billions of years...
Regarding SNR; You seem to argue the absence of evidence proves your theory... We have actually seen supernovas from an other galaxies. Visit toarchives.org page CE401 for more.
Re comets and Oort Cloud; Are you again arguing that lack of evidence of Oort Cloud proves your theory?
Re moon: moon seems to get further away from us 4cm/year and we know from the tidal friction, earth rotation speed and that a hundreds of millions years ago there were about 400 days per year. Moon seems to show that earth must be old.
....
You don't seem to have any solid evidence and we have unbroken tree ring series and ice core drill sample series longer that 6000 years. Several civilizations have more that 6000 year record. Are you basing all this on Genesis 1 which is just a fan fiction rip off from Enuma Elish? Isn't CreationOnTheWeb.com just Bible based apologist web site. You might want to check out real science stuff.
....
Neil wrote:
The plain reading [of six days creation] and understanding has been the teaching of the majority of Christians in the early Church, the Reformers and Puritans. The Sydney Anglican Diocese has departed from this position. In so doing the Diocese, by majority, has opened the door to unbelief and presents a distorted Jesus Christ to the world.
Adoptionism was the early church majority reading and so was so was geocentrism, flat earth and torturing people for confession (St. Augustin). Reformist original reading was witch and heretic burning. Christian world view has changed so many times, why is the Creationism so important to you? Will one go to hell if one believes in old Earth or evolution, or is that just a slippery slope thing?
Warwick,
I sincerely wanted to know the Official Sydney Anglican position on young/old earth and creation/evolution (and the biblical view). You should not label me genuine until you get to know me, Internet is full of silly anonymous commentators. ;-)
Warwick said...
"the Koran continues to demand violence from its followers, today. We see the murderous results world-wide where those the Koran describes as 'infidels' are murdered on a daliy basis"
What is with Christian witch burnings in 2008 in Africa. Those conservative Christians think you are a liberal heretic not following Matthew 5 and Romans 1. And lets not get to abortion clinic bombings or God telling GWB to go to Iraq...
Warwick said...
Compare the explicit commanded violence of the Koran-i.e. Surah 4;89,47:4, 9;123, & 8:67- with Jesus' Sermon on the Mount and if you are open to truth you will see the absolute difference
Even when you are picking and choosing your comparison you are telling me that "...Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law..." meaning we need to kill witches, heretics and homosexuals? Do you follow Jesus' word in the Sermon of the mount or not?
Warwick said...
Peter the NT is a later addition to what?
The Old Testament?
Warwick said...
You say the NT 'commands that its followers commit violence...' Pray tell, where?
Jesus told us to keep the law until heaven and earth disappear (Matthew 5:18) including "homosexuals must me put to death" (Leviticus 20:13). Paul supported this idea of killing (Romans 1:32). "The plain reading and understanding has been the teaching of the majority of Christians in the early Church, the Reformers and Puritans." Killing of homosexuals only started when Christians got to power.
Warwick said...
Peter you say I didn't answer your question? What was the question?
Sorry if I have not been clear. Neil already answered my main questions. Can I get your view how "reshiyth Elohiym..." (Gen 1:1), "shesh yowm Yehovah..." (Ex 20:11) and (Deuteronomy 6:4) supports Creator Jesus or Trinity?
Peter,
Do you ever look at yourself in the mirror and think, "I'm not really an honest fellow." I mean, you aren't being exactly up front with us are you? What's your game, mate?
Re Honorary Doctor Thomas Barnes, honorary he may have been, but what about..
Dr. Thomas G. Barnes (1911-2001) was a creationist physicist who made a significant contribution to creation science for more than 60 years. Although he trained as a physicist, his scientific work covered many fields, ranging from medicine to geophysics. His research led to patents on electronic sound-ranging devices, such as the Dodar (the forerunner of sonar), directional microphones, and magnetic sensing, electrochemical extraction and seismic energy devices. He also worked on the vector cardiograph, which was the first three-dimensional computer display to study the heart.
Dr. Barnes was Professor Emeritus of Physics of Texas Western College of the University of Texas at El Paso, where he was a faculty member for 43 years. He was also Director of the prestigious Schellenger Research Laboratories from its establishment in 1953 until 1965.
He earned his A.B. degree at Hardin-Simmons University (Abilene, Texas) in 1933, and his M.S. at Brown University (Providence, Rhode Island) in 1936 while studying under famous physicist R. B. Lindsay. In 1950, Hardin-Simmons University awarded him the D.Sc. degree.
From 1942 till 1945, Dr. Barnes did research as a physicist with Duke University. He worked as a consulting physicist for the U.S. Army Research Office in 1963, and conducted original research on seismic energy sources for Global Universal Sciences for many years from 1965. He helped develop equipment to study medical patients with heart abnormalities, and developed instruments for detecting enemy locations during the Vietnam War.
Dr. Barnes authored many scientific papers and books, and was the chairman of the committee that developed the Creation Research Society’s biology textbook published by Zondervan. He was a Director and former President of the Creation Research Society (1973-76), and was the first Dean of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) Graduate School, serving from its founding in 1981 until his retirement in 1984.
He contended that the earth's magnetic field was decaying at an exponential rate, and that this proved the earth could not be more than about 10,000 years old. He also maintained that the half-life of the earth's magnetic field was roughly 1400 years. His technical monograph for ICR, Origin and Destiny of the Earth’s Magnetic Field, in 1973, became a creationist classic.
Now Peter, what are your qualifications?
Peter said: "For example we do know that earth's magnetic field was weaker 550000000 years ago."
Peter, please tell me how we KNOW?
John has provided Dr Barnes' qualifications. Your errant disparaging remarks diminish your resort to "Real scientists". Dr Barnes' work on the subject withstands an imagined self sustaining dynamo and varying objections from sceptics.
Peter said: "Regarding Helium, you should ask Mike. He is a physicist and should be able to explain this to you."
Mike who? Could I suggest you do your own work and provide a valid reponse if you are aware of one.
Peter said: "Regarding ocean salt; The salt amount seem to have been quite stable for billions of years..."
Please produce your source and answer how you can confidently say salt levels have been stable for billions of years? viz what measure exists to validate that statement?
Peter said: "Regarding SNR; You seem to argue the absence of evidence proves your theory... We have actually seen supernovas from an other galaxies."
It appears to me that the existence of SNR's in another galaxy is only relevant to the point I made if they are in the third stage of expansion. Absence of evidence? Yeah, it's sort of like - If stochastic chemistry only produces racemic amino acids then there is no strong case that it ever has.
Re Oort Cloud. The issue is the decay of the comets. They would have evaporated well before billions of years proposed for the age of the solar system. An unseen Oort Cloud is no explanation.
Peter said: we know from the tidal friction, earth rotation speed and that a hundreds of millions years ago there were about 400 days per year."
Please tell me how we KNOW?
I would like to deal with those matters before addressing your hackneyed and ill informed comments at the close of your reply.
Neil
John,
Sorry John I did not mean your comment was off topic. I meant that my do/don't beliefs should not be a topic if this Creation related post. I'm not a Muslim, but your claim that God revelation in Koran is wrong. Any Muslim apologist can help you and explain why you are wrong. Christians generally do not believe in religious eyewitness account, only selectively Christian eyewitness accounts.
John 19:33-35 tells that "The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe" and that is true because it says so? Is that circular reasoning?
John said:
What is your source for [Jews did not mind that much is someone claimed to be a Messiah] claim?
Athronges, Simon bar Kokhba and Sabbatai Zevi and truckload of other people claimed to a Messiah and managed to get plenty of followers. Do you believe that Sanhedrin met on the eve of the Passover?
Peter said earlier :“I would have to go with early Christians and say no to Trinity. Even Jesus never taught about it so it can not be an important thing.”
John replied:
This is clearly not true, Peter. The early Christian apologists DID call Jesus God.
John, note that your a), b) and even c) don't mention trinity! In fact Justin Martyr was an adoptionist (and let's not talk about authenticity/reliability of Inganius works). Then you missed the guy who introduced the trinity and d) and e) are later writers. You might want to reconsider your statement.
I understand that Christian logos is slightly modified version of the couple of previous versions around at the time. Astrology (astro + logos), "star speech", has been around a long time, but Logos idea is often credited to Heraclitus. Just like trinity was modified from Egyptian etc and so many other idea like purgatory, virgin birth, baptism, speaking in tongues, Christmas, Easter but I digressed, sorry.
Re: Col 1:15-16. When you have a difficult and simplified version of a same passage in two different Bibles which one do you think should be followed? Similar rule is in textual criticism where usually more difficult reading tends to be the older version. My Bible disagrees with your Col 1:15-16 interpretation, but I'll take your word for it. But could I ask your view on how does this tie up with "reshiyth Elohiym..." (Gen 1:1), "shesh yowm Yehovah..." (Ex 20:11) and (Deuteronomy 6:4)?
John,
now that is an impressive list of degrees and achievements.
John said:
Now Peter, what are your qualifications?
I don't usually use the "appeal to authority" kind of argument, but if that is acceptable according to you then why not... My friend is a canonized Saint (yes, a real Saint) and he in his divine wisdom disagrees with your cast of experts. Now did I win your appeal to authority contest and can I skip Neils questions?
Neil said:
Peter, please tell me how we KNOW [that for example we do know that earth's magnetic field was weaker 550000000 years ago]?
by analysing magnetic properties of volcanic rocks and dating those.
Neil said:
Mike who? Could I suggest you do your own work and provide a valid response if you are aware of one.
Mike, the guy you attacked on this post. Surely you are a gentleman and as a true Christian you respectfully invited him to respond to your accusations. And excuse me what work have you done regarding helium on rocks research other that copying this from creationontheweb?
Neil's ocean salinity source request:
Paul R. Pinet, Invitation to Oceanography, p.148. It also explains how we know.
re SNR Neil said:
Absence of evidence? Yeah, it's sort of like - If stochastic chemistry only produces racemic amino acids then there is no strong case that it ever has.
You are right, but the irony is that you did not know it. You did claim absence of evidence and we have seen how natural process can create only left-handed (or right) molecules. You might want to research outside of Creationontheweb to keep up with the science. Same with the moon, surely you have read the studies about moons age.
Neil wrote:
I would like to deal with those matters before addressing your hackneyed and ill informed comments at the close of your reply.
Ad hominem seem to be here a standard method dealing with opposing views. I'm starting to think that maybe you should consider apologizing Mike. I think the Christian way would be to treat your opponents with respect and politely address the mistakes in their ways.
Folks I think Peter's exposure must be a record.
As with the other desperates he came on all nice as if he truly wanted to know what bloggers here believe. However a few questions later and his agenda lies revealed for all to see.
I notice that all deceivers make a claims such as peter did: 'I would have to go with early Christians and say no to Trinity. Even Jesus never taught about it so it can not be an important thing.”
John clearly showed that the early church fathers considered Jesus was God. But true to form ( deceivers form) Peter slips past this roadblock and starts spraying his cultic nonsense.
I think he is an ex-Muslim who has become a JW. Any other ideas?
Haven't we all heard this nonsense over and over? Hasn't it been answered over and over? But the true deceiver just keeps plodding on.
I remember a deceiver named Nathan who attacked the then Answers in Genesis, making all sorts of claims about its supposed illegal and immoral behaviour. One lie was that AiG had not put in tax returns. He was contradicted by a letter from the Australian Tax Office. So Nathan apologized and admitted he was wrong didn't he? No way he just came up with another lie/half-truth from his bag of lies and that in turn was contradicted by documentary evidence. As you know nothing stopped him, and he continues with his lies up until now.
It looks as if Peter is in the deceiver league (maybe not with Nathan's stamina) and will duck anything which proves him wrong and move on to his next piece of nonsense.
Don't waste your time with him. he doesn't want to know why you believe what you believe. He is just here to spew his nonsense.
Peter,
Just to refresh everyone's memory on what you claimed: "I would have to go with early Christians and say no to Trinity. Even Jesus never taught about it so it can not be an important thing."
The first point is that the early Christian witness DID declare Jesus God, so therefore the Trinity concept is already there. Jesus being God is a key concept to the Trinitarian doctrine. If they hadn't declared Jesus God then your argument would be valid. As the historical evidence clearly states, you're wrong.
Second, that someone did not have a name for a phenomena is neither here not there.
Third, Jesus declared himself to be God so that ends the matter.
As to your "My friend is a canonized Saint (yes, a real Saint) and he in his divine wisdom disagrees with your cast of experts", well my friend is a frequent flier and he disagrees with Professor Adams at UNSW Aeronautical Engineering Faculty about the mecahnics of flying, so there!
Peter reckons, "In fact Justin Martyr was an adoptionist"
No he wasn't! Get your facts right.
Warwick,
Jesus been called God is one divinity short of Trinity. Please mention even one passage in the original Bible or any other Christian literature that suggest or mentions Trinity within 150 year from Jesus death. These were the times of eye witnesses and people who had a change to talk to the eye witnesses were alive. No need to call me a deceiver or claiming that I spray his cultic nonsense, just make your case using Christian manuscripts and literature with true Christian friendliness.
John,
I agree that many early Christians call Jesus "God". It is even written in the oldest known Christian worship place found in Megiddo, but that is just one divinity short of Trinity.
John said:
Jesus being God is a key concept to the Trinitarian doctrine.
No. It is like saying Trinity is a key concept to the "Four Gods in one" doctrine. If you would advocate polytheism then maybe...
John said:
Second, that someone did not have a name for a phenomena is neither here not there.
Sure, but to make your case you need to prove it and for example mid second century Justin Martyr advocated subordinationism which kind of destroys your case.
John said:
Third, Jesus declared himself to be God so that ends the matter.
If Jesus was God it still does not mean there was a Trinity. Trinity need three (not two) persons.
Justin Martyr in Dialogue with Trypho 103 quotes the Mark 1:11, like codex Bezae and many early manuscripts as "Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten Thee". Your Bible does not have it but originally it read accordning to Justin Martyr that Jesus was adopted in baptism as son of God. And yes he also wrote about "God having come upon the virgin" (the first apology 33). I am happy to change my mind if you give me the facts straight.
Methinks young Pierre is having a little joke, or maybe not. Unless I have it terribly wrong, for someone to be a canonized saint they first have to have snuffed it! If so what is Pierre telling us, that he's having some sort of relationship with a dead guy?
Come on Peter pull the other one!
Peter how true to form you run; how predictable. So we are up to two personalities within the Godhead and you wonder about the third. It would appear you accept the duality but need convincing about the third member.
Consider:
In the third chapter of Mark (3:29) Jesus, God the Son, says ‘But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.’ How can anyone commit blasphemy against a force (as some cultists refer to the Holy Spirit)? If the Holy Spirit is simply the spirit of God, not the third member of the trinity, why does Mark consider blasphemy against the Holy Spirit to be so significant, 'an eternal sin'?
In 2 Corinthians 13:14 Paul writes-'May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.
How can we fellowship with an impersonal force? Why does Paul link all three in the one blessing?
See for example Matt. 28.19, John 14:26 & 15:26,Acts 13:2, & Acts 5:3-4 where referring to The Holy Spirit, it says:
People are baptized into His name
He is referred to as ‘he’
He is counselor
He teaches
He reminds
He testifies
He speaks
He commands
He calls Himself 'I'
Peter equates lying to Him as lying to God.
Nothing in these verses suggests anything other than the Holy Spirit being a person. These references don't fit with Him being a force, or impersonal.
That view is contrary to Scripture.
Peter you write of 'true Christian friendliness' but how can you, who reject Biblical Christianity know what Christian friendliness is?
Read Galatians 5:12 where Paul says 'As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate (castrate)themselves!'
Is this 'Christian friendliness' or is it a comment that the agitators, those who oppose Gods word, deserve.
As I read Scripture the apostles were real men who called a spade a spade, a liar a liar, and a deceiver, a deceiver. They were ardent in their defence of the Truth and passionately opposed to those deceivers who attempted to pervert it. Don't be a wimp!
1. Peter wrote that "Your Bible does not have it but originally it read accordning to Justin Martyr that Jesus was adopted in baptism as son of God."
Evidence?
However, according to Justin:
The Word is numerically distinct from the Father (Dialogue with Trypho 128-129; cf. Dialogue with Trypho 56, 62). He was born of the very substance of the Father, not that this substance was divided, but He proceeds from it as one fire does from another at which it is lit (cxxviii, lxi); this form of production (procession) is compared also with that of human speech (lxi). The Word (Logos) is therefore the Son: much more, He alone may properly be called Son (II Apol., vi, 3); He is the monogenes, the unigenitus (Dialogue with Trypho 105). Elsewhere, however, Justin, like St. Paul, calls Him the eldest Son, prototokos (I Apol., xxxiii; xlvi; lxiii; Dialogue with Trypho 84, 85 and 125). The Word is God (I Apol., lxiii; Dialogue with Trypho 34, 36, 37, 56, 63, 76, 86, 87, 113, 115, 125, 126 and 128). His Divinity, however, seems subordinate, as does the worship which is rendered to Him (I Apol., vi; cf. lxi, 13; Teder, "Justins des Märtyrers Lehre von Jesus Christus", Freiburg im Br., 1906, 103-19). The Father engendered Him by a free and voluntary act (Dialogue with Trypho 61, 100, 127 and 128; cf. Teder, op. cit., 104), at the beginning of all His works (Dialogue with Trypho 61-62, II Apol., vi, 3); in this last text certain authors thought they distinguished in the Word two states of being, one intimate, the other outspoken, but this distinction, though found in some other apologists, is in Justin very doubtful. Through the Word God has made everything (II Apol., vi; Dialogue with Trypho 114). The Word is diffused through all humanity (I Apol., vi; II, viii; xiii); it was He who appeared to the patriarchs (I Apol., lxii; lxiii; Dialogue with Trypho 56, 59, 60 etc.). Two influences are plainly discernible in the aforesaid body of doctrine. It is, of course, to Christian revelation that Justin owes his concept of the distinct personality of the Word, His Divinity and Incarnation; but philosophic speculation is responsible for his unfortunate concepts of the temporal and voluntary generation of the Word, and for the subordinationism of Justin's theology. It must be recognized, moreover, that the latter ideas stand out more boldly in the "Apology" than in the "Dialogue."
The question is: Did Justin believe Jesus to be fully God? Yes he did!
Peter replied: "John, note that your a), b) and even c) don't mention trinity! In fact Justin Martyr was an adoptionist (and let's not talk about authenticity/reliability of Inganius works). Then you missed the guy who introduced the trinity and d) and e) are later writers. You might want to reconsider your statement."
That a,b,c didn't mention the word Trinity was not a part of your argument. Yours was that the CONCEPT didn't exist, which is patently false because they declared Jesus God.
And your asides about polytheism are a red herring because these early Christians did not believe in 3 gods but one.
And the person who first introduced the word Trinity was in fact Tertullian, someone I did quote i.e. 'd'
Warwick said...
for someone to be a canonized saint they first have to have snuffed it! If so what is Pierre telling us..
You do not have to be dead to be canonized. You corrected me when I accidentally misspelled your name and now you are calling me "Pierre". ok, if that rocks your boat.
Warwick said...
So we are up to two personalities within the Godhead and you wonder about the third.
Please do not make up Scripture, Paul warned not to do that. If you claim there was the Godhead, please cite who wrote about it and when. I don't know why Mark 3:29 says that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit to be so significant, 'an eternal sin'.
Re 2 Corinthians 13:14: Eisegesis?
Also I don't know if people can have a fellowship with any kind of force, some claim they have. None of your verses mention Trinity nor Godhead and your Matthew 28:19 seem to belater addition to the Bible.
Re true Christian friendliness: Two Sydney Anglican ministers that I know are extremely friendly, polite and caring people.
Re Galatians 5:12: Please study Valesii sect to understand this better.
John said...
Did Justin believe Jesus to be fully God? Yes he did!
I agree with you and I already stated that earlier. God and Jesus were the same "substance" just like Zeus and his son Heracles. Justin Martyr considered Jesus to be a lesser God just like Heracles was lesser being that Zeus. My argument was that he became a son of God in baptism as I quoted by him and the early versions of the Bible. And Justin's "Jesus the lesser God" kills your Trinity argument...
John said...
That a,b,c didn't mention the word Trinity was not a part of your argument. Yours was that the CONCEPT didn't exist, which is patently false because they declared Jesus God.
Math: God + lesser God Jesus = two persons; Trinity = three persons. Again go back to the text where someone argues "three person in one".
John said...
And the person who first introduced the word Trinity was in fact Tertullian, someone I did quote i.e. 'd'
Ok, let's look this more closely
- You seem to be quoting Tertullian's "On Modesty" and dated it (c.177) to the wrong century trying to make your point. That is naughty, repent.
- He was not the first Christian to use the word Trinity, just in it's modern sense.
- But you are missing the guy who first wrote "the unity of these three, the Spirit, the Son, the Father" ("CONCEPT") predating Origen and Tertullian...
So I can even state that both the Trinity and Trinity "CONCEPT" did not exist within 150 year from Jesus death.
So, did you ask Mike?
Peter said: "we KNOW [that for example we do know that earth's magnetic field was weaker 550000000years ago]? by analysing magnetic properties of volcanic rocks and dating those."
Radiometric dating of rocks has produced seriously errant dating of specimens when the actual age of the samples were known. While the decay rate of elements is known the assumptions of no contamination and assumed mother to daughter ration of elements at formation expose the process to error. Do you wonder why many sample submission forms ask the question "How old do you think the sample is?" This suggests to me that the method is not absolute.
The sample from which your source deduced a 55000000 date is, in my opinion, much more recent than generally thought.
Nevertheless, Humphreys, working on Barnes' data and other data, recognised magnetic polarity reversals and advocates rapid reversals in the past sauch as is known to occur with the sun. During an event such as the global flood, decay rates would have been significantly influenced and major fluctuations are proposed for a period up to 2,000 years after the flood event before resumption of steady decay until now.
Barnes' work with later work of Humphreys still stands against the attacks of its opponents.
Peter asked: "And excuse me what work have you done regarding helium on rocks research other that copying this from creationontheweb?"
Like you I quote sources. I didn't go the CreationOnTheWeb site for the topic of Helium in the granites but I expect it is there. Unless you are quoting all things to me which are the product of your own practical work in science then your questioning of me on this is a little hypocritical. The reality is we both refer to sources and the aim ought then to be to test them. The problem I see with you is that your instant dismissal of anything linked to CreationOnTheWeb is a declaration of a closed mind. Such close mindedness has been a constant hindrance to understanding in the history of the world.
Peter said: "we have seen how natural process can create only left-handed (or right) molecules."
Did you get this from "Talk Origins"? If not, did your source actually say that stochastic chemistry "creates only left-handed (or right) molecules"? If so, would you please provide your source.
Peter said: "I'm starting to think that maybe you should consider apologizing Mike."
That would be good. I have been waiting for some time for Mike Paget to apologise to me for letting me down.
I will get back to you after looking at the work on salinity by Pinet, you quoted.
Neil
1. Peter claims: "My argument was that he became a son of God in baptism as I quoted by him and the early versions of the Bible."
So, you are an adoptionist.
But Justin was decidedly not, so can you actually quote where he says he is? Can you also quote the Bible where it says this?
2.Peter claims: "And Justin's "Jesus the lesser God" kills your Trinity argument..."
So, if I understand your case correctly, Justin believed there was 1 God and then Jesus was a little god. Is that right?
Peter,
1. Do you believe that Jesus was crucified, was dead in the flesh, and physically rose after 3 days?
2. Who is Jesus for you?
Peter looks like a certain type of maladjusted misotheist who relies on TalkObnoxious and spruiks moral equivalence between Islam and Christianity. Yet there are no Christian suicide bombers or flying planes into buildings. Peter brings up the bombings of abortion clinics, but they are few and far between and are condemned by pro-life groups. Yet the alleged peaceful Muslim majority is a very silent one.
He is also ignorant of the Jewish basis for the Trinity in their concept of the Memra in the Targums, which is what Logos refers to. Where the Bible said something was done by God, often the Targum said it was done by the Memra (word) of God. I.e. sometimes this Memra was spoken as distinct from God, other times as God, which is just what the Johannine Prologue states!
For early support of the Trinity, see Melito's Passover sermon of AD 170:
And so he was lifted up upon a tree and an inscription was attached indicating who was being killed. Who was it? It is a grievous thing to tell, but a most fearful thing to refrain from telling. But listen, as you tremble before him on whose account the earth trembled!
He who hung the earth in place is hanged.
He who fixed the heavens in place is fixed in place.
He who made all things fast is made fast on a tree.
The Sovereign is insulted.
God is murdered.
...
The One having all authority to judge and save,
Through Whom the Father made the things which exist from the beginning of time.
This One is ‘the Alpha and the Omega’,
This One is ‘the beginning and the end’
...
neil moore said...
Radiometric dating of rocks has produced seriously errant dating of specimens when the actual age of the samples were known
But that does not point to 6000 year old earth. Creationist need to put forward a solid theory how the flood changed the know physics as for example Gabon Oklo nuclear reactor isotopes are difficult to explain with young earth...
Re being little hypocritical:
Maybe this was a misunderstanding. I thought you asked me to "do your own work". My bad, sorry.
Re molecules:
nai.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_detail.cfm?ID=75
neil moore said...
I have been waiting for some time for Mike Paget to apologise to me for letting me down.
Matthew 5:9
John said...
So, you are an adoptionist...
But Justin was decidedly not, so can you actually quote where he says he is? Can you also quote the Bible where it says this?
I'm not. You did not read my answer above. I wrote:
"Justin Martyr in Dialogue with Trypho 103 quotes the Mark 1:11, like codex Bezae and many early manuscripts."
It is also in Dialogues with Trypho 88 and even St Augustine quotes it.
Re my view of Jesus: I would take couple of long posts to explain of those three separate issues. In summary: I'm not sure, but it is not a modern Christian view.
Ktisophilos,
You ignored my question and went to unnecessary personal insults, I think you should consider a better approach to defend your faith.
Ktisophilos...
Yet there are no Christian suicide bombers
Wrong. Please read for example about Loula Abboud or read about modern Christian bishops encouraging suicide bombings. Read about what bishops Atta Allah Hana, Riah Hanna Abu El-Assal and Munib Younan are telling. Just because you don't research the subject it does not mean it does not happen.
Ktisophilos...
Peter brings up the bombings of abortion clinics, but they are few and far between
Wrong. Just in the USA during the 90s there were
- over 1800 abortion clinic Invasion, Assault & Battery, Vandalism, Trespassing, Death Threats or Burglary.
- 157 abortion clinic Bombing, Arson, Attempted Bombing or Arson
- 23 abortion clinic related murders or attempted murders
So there were abortion clinic related incidents every second day.
Please read up and back your claims with facts not insults.
Ktisophilos...
He is also ignorant of the Jewish basis for the Trinity in their concept of the Memra in the Targums, which is what Logos refers to.
I actually alluded to that above if you studied my post. The first Christian who mentioned the word "Trinity" was Theophilus of Antioch in "To Autolycus" and used the Jewish type of Trinity as you know.
Ktisophilos...
For early support of the Trinity, see Melito's Passover sermon of AD 170
It does not seem to talk about Trinity, but tells the common early Christian view that Jesus was hung on a tree (Paul's view). Where do you see "three persons in one"?
In reply to my statement "Radiometric dating of rocks has produced seriously errant dating of specimens when the actual age of the samples were known",
Peter said: "But that does not point to 6000 year old earth."
I was not saying that the spurious radiometric dating methods prove a young earth. I was saying that radiometric dating give no grounds for you to say we know the measure of earth's magnetic field 55000000 years ago by dating rock samples. If radiometric dating can't get it right when we know the age of a sample, how can we know it is correct when we don't know the age of the sample? (rhetorical question. I still submit the work of Barnes and Humphreys on earth's decaying magnetic field as one of evidences supporting a young earth
In answer to an earlier question I have thus far overlooked I put to you that in my opinion the Biblical Creationist concern is, at the least, a concern about alternative interpretations of Scripture on origins which are a "slippery slope".
Because you question that Jesus Christ is God, I wonder if you will tell me who is in error or lying at Rev 21:6-7,
"He said to me 'It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son'."
and at Rev 22:13-16,
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End .... I,Jesus ..."
Neil
Peter, you can't be serious!
Upon request for evidence of stochastic chemistry having produced all L-handed or all R-handed amino acids you cite an experiment that was nothing at all a stochastic situation. It was a well ordered experiment using technology developed by intelligence and requiring careful selection and ordering from intelligent minds to produce a result which the paper says can provide a "possible answer" and "such peptide chemistry could play an important role in the gestation of life". This is not a demonstration that stochastic chemistry HAS done what you say.
I repeat, You can't be serious!
Neil
Warwick said...
A few comments Peter:
for someone to be a canonized saint they first have to have snuffed it! If so what is Pierre telling us..
'You do not have to be dead to be canonized.'
You may be right, but can you give a living example and advise who canonized him/her?
'You corrected me when I accidentally misspelled your name and now you are calling me "Pierre". ok, if that rocks your boat.'
At least I spelled it correctly. Lighten up Peter.
Warwick said...
So we are up to two personalities within the Godhead and you wonder about the third.
Please do not make up Scripture, Paul warned not to do that.
'Indeed He did and we are warned not to manipulate or reject it either. My comment came about as you seem to accept that God the Father and God the Son are both God, part of the Godhead, but reject the third member. Maybe I misunderstood you.'
If you claim there was the Godhead, please cite who wrote about it and when.
'Peter do you think I haven’t heard this silly comment before? Godhead is a term used to describe an obvious reality. The reality exists no matter what word we use to describe it. Do you imagine the polygamous natives of the upper Limpopo called themselves polygamous? Of course not, but none the less they were. Do you think Muhammad called himself a child-molesting terrorist? Of course not these terms don’t exist in the Koran. Nonetheless he was both.'
'I really despair of the limited thinking which says a descriptive word had to exist for that which it describes to be reality.'
I don't know why Mark 3:29 says that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit to be so significant, 'an eternal sin'.
'It is strong evidence that the Holy Spirit was not some impersonal force but a personality, part of the Godhead. How can anyone blaspheme against something impersonal? Blasphemy is reserved for crimes against God, not against concepts, forces or men. It was for blasphemy that Jesus was executed as scripture clearly shows.'
Re 2 Corinthians 13:14: Eisegesis?
'Not at all. It is clear that Paul was giving a blessing in the name of the three in one God. Interestingly he placed Jesus first indicating the importance of Christ, God on earth, the Saviour.'
'The word fellowship here (in the original Greek) means partaking, sharing, i.e. participation, communion. '
'We can have fellowship with God, and Jesus, and the Holy Spirit because they are personalities. We can’t do so with a force or a concept or construct.'
'Your main problem Peter is that you come to Scripture, with 'malice aforethought' endeavouring to make it conform to your anti-Biblical ideas. This isn’t anything unique, in fact it is common. Sadly even some of our Anglican brothers do the same.'
'Conversely I read Scripture, and have done so cover to cover, for decades asking to Holy Spirit (as we are advised) to reveal meaning to me. I read the book following its lead whereas you retranslate or reject that which does not fit with your ‘educated in’ bias. '
’Also I don't know if people can have a fellowship with any kind of force, some claim they have. None of your verses mention Trinity nor Godhead and
Your Matthew 28:19 seem to belater addition to the Bible.
'Interesting accidental error- a ‘belater’ being someone who causes a delay.'
'Quelle horreur don’t tell me there is another late addition. Firstly you say the whole NT is a later addition, now you would have us believe the later addition has later additions of its own. O dear where will it all end?'
Re true Christian friendliness: Two Sydney Anglican ministers that I know are extremely friendly, polite and caring people.
'Those who know me would describe me likewise, and do. I just call a spade a spade, holding especial disgust for those who endeavour to deceive others. I am in good company here as Galatians 5:12 (and other Scriptures) illustrate.'
'Many of us here are serious Bible-believing Christians therefore we owe our forgiveness, our salvation and our eternal life to Jesus our God and Saviour. Therefore we will defend Him and His word with stamina and passionately, as he commands.'
'Let me illustrate my attitude to the likes of you by using a worldly example. Imagine we are dedicated career gardeners employed to plant and maintain a magnificent garden. In this scenario you enter the garden to poison lovely trees because they spoil your view. You also dump your exotic garden-waste in our garden introducing exotic plants, in this setting nothing but weeds. And you want us to be all warm and friendly towards you. Surely you jest!'
Re Galatians 5:12: Please study Valesii sect to understand this better.
'What is your point Peter? It’s lost on me, I don’t see any connection to the point I was making; That being that the apostle spoke very bluntly and harshly to those ‘agitators.’'
Neil,
John's dreams are hard to interpret and the book almost missed the Bible. I don't think religious writers are usually lying, but in John's case it is so hard to fully understand that I don't know what to make of it. His visions and claims seem to be like visions of Mohammad, Zoroaster or Oracles of Delphi, would you agree?
But I think "the Alpha and the Omega" should be understood as circular (yearly) not linear, the all compassing heaven above us. "The Alpha and the Omega" might have lost a bit meaning for John not using the Semitic Aleph and Tau[rus], the twin bulls of Babylon's astrology meeting at spring equinox at the (re)birth of the... So, I don't know what it means. Any ideas of the point John tries to make with those verses?
neil moore said...
It was a well ordered experiment using technology developed by intelligence and requiring careful selection and ordering from intelligent minds to produce a result
I guess using that kind of argument you can conveniently dismiss any result produced in the lab and if the current earth environment does not enable life to get started you can stick to your "absence of evidence" claim. How about if you explain how do you prove the negative claim of "stochastic chemistry only produces racemic amino acids" and give us an example how your claim could be falsified?
Warwick said...
I really despair of the limited thinking which says a descriptive word had to exist for that which it describes to be reality
Don't despair, but just quote the Bible or early Christian writing describing the concept of "Godhead" so I know that you are not making stuff up.
Warwick said...
[Re: blasphemy] It is strong evidence that the Holy Spirit was not some impersonal force but a personality, part of the Godhead
I don't get your logic. Does this mean the Jesus is not a personality because blasphemy against Jesus is not 'an eternal sin'? Please explain; what is the "strong evidence".
Warwick said...
It was for blasphemy that Jesus was executed as scripture clearly shows
Please answer my early question and it might open this up: Do you believe that Sanhedrin met on the eve of the Passover? Remember I pointed out several Messiah/Son of God Jews who became popular. Please address the real historical issue.
Warwick said...
[Re 2 Corinthians 13:14] It is clear that Paul was giving a blessing in the name of the three in one God
Nonsense. He does not call Holy Spirit a God nor claims that those three are in one God. This only came in much later.
Warwick said...
you retranslate or reject that which does not fit with your ‘educated in’ bias... with 'malice aforethought'... your anti-Biblical ideas
Excuse me? I'm the one here who used Hebrew and Greek text and early Christian writings in this thread. Please refer to a dictionary (Strong's?) if you think I use a wrong English words. And please tell me more about my "educated in" bias?
Warwick refered to...
"Two Sydney Anglican ministers that [Peter] know[s] are extremely friendly, polite and caring people.
and Warwick said...
'Those who know me would describe me likewise, and do.
I don't think are like the two Sydney Anglican ministers that I know. They do not resort to a name calling while arguing a theological point. I think you would get your point across better with more friendly approach and maybe dropping your "magnificent garden" analogy. IMHO
Peter argues that: "John's dreams are hard to interpret and the book almost missed the Bible. I don't think religious writers are usually lying, but in John's case it is so hard to fully understand that I don't know what to make of it. His visions and claims seem to be like visions of Mohammad, Zoroaster or Oracles of Delphi, would you agree?"
John was Jesus' closest friend. He wrote a HISTORY of this encounter. He saw clear evidence, and recorded it as an HISTORICAL document, that Jesus did many proofs (i.e. miracles) demonstrating that he was at least a prophet from God, including the ultimate proof of raising himself physically from the grave.
No one wrote a "history" of Muhammad until about 150 years after he died. He didn't perform a single miracle unless you believe he REALLY did split the moon in two, a "miracle" that would serve no use. Muhammad never claimed to be anything but a man. Jesus, on the other hand, claimed he was much more.
In any case, why would you care what a man who vaginally raped an 8year old had to say? Why would you bother listening to a man who told his adopted son to divorce his wife so he could marry her on the "sugestion" of Allah? [BTW, Muhammad had "accidently" walked into her tent and seen her in her birthday suit and raced back to his men and said, "Allah has spoken..."]
Zoroaster? Well, ask any Zoroastrian "priest" and they will tell you that their "history" wasn't written until 2,000 years later and was continually added to. Was he a real man? Who knows? Who cares? One thing is certain, you wouldn't want to bet your soul on Zoroastrian "history".
The oracles of Delphi!? Can you lead me to a trustworthy MS that was contemporary with Delphi's use? Who wrote it? Etc etc etc.
Peter as regards your relationship with a living saint I asked ‘You may be right, but can you give a living example and advise who canonized him/her?‘
Why are you coy about answering the question? Something improper going on here?
What religious organization do you attend or align yourself with?
Let’s get down to some basics Peter. Do you believe God created over a period of six approximately 24hr days?
Was the flood of Noah universal, in the sense of covering the whole globe?
Do you believe Jesus was correct in saying that man was made at the beginning of the creation, that in which we live?
Do you believe that Jesus physically rose form the dead and is the only way to salvation?
Peter said: " John's dreams are hard to interpret and the book almost missed the Bible."
I note in your dialogue with Warwick that you place some importance on what is Canonised. The book of Revelation is Canonised Scripture. Let that stand. Further, you go where you ought not go when you say that the Apostle John's experience was a dream. Nowhere in the incidents I refer to does John give any suggestion that his experience was a dream (eisegesis on display here?).
Peter writes: " I don't think religious writers are usually lying, but in John's case it is so hard to fully understand that I don't know what to make of it."
Either intentionally of unintentionally, you miss the point. It is not about John. He can only record what he saw and heard and he heard both God (the Father according to verse 7b) and Jesus apply the same title to themselves - the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. Both claim to be God.
Your response exposes the chasm between yourself and supporters of this site. We have a high regard for the revelation of Jesus Christ as the Word of God and entrust our life to Him whereas you seem to be influenced more by the multitude of words of man. I have been where you are. It has no future and I am not going back.
Peter said: "How about if you explain how do you prove the negative claim of "stochastic chemistry only produces racemic amino acids" and give us an example how your claim could be falsified?"
Laboratory experiments need to occur with the least amount of manipulation or design by an intelligent mind to present a case for a stochastic or random replication or origin.
In response to the example you cited I put it to you that, apart from my already stated objections, Ghadiri et al's statement "Here we report that a 32-residue peptide replicator, DESIGNED (emphasis mine) according to our earlier principles is capable of efficiently amplifying homochiral products from a racemic mixture of peptide fragments through a chiroselective autocatalytic cycle" is too much a removal from capacity of randomness to have achieved the result.
Look, l'll let you into a little secret. The author of all confusion is to take an idea and turn it on its head without anyone noticing it.
The naturalists have for a long time claimed random arrangement of chemicals for the formation of life. They have denounced those who propose a designer in the synthesis of life.
Ghadiri et al have stolen our ground but it has been noticed.
Neil
Just want to say that firstly I do believe the Genesis creation account is correct and to interpret it in light of the theory of evolution is wrong.
But, something even worse than that is this blog. If the people in charge of this blog truely loved the lord then their speech would not be the same ice cold talk of the pharasies, of whom Jesus certainly did not agree with. Rather it would be with love and gentleness.
Although I believe that Gensis 1-3 should be read in the same way that the rest of Genesis is read, it's also important to realise that salvation is only by the death and resurrection of Jesus. That means anyone who accepts him to cover for our sins is saved.
Let's use a quick example, say I have a friend who goes to a church that has allows women to be ministers, and he says he's fine with that. Does that then mean he isn't saved by the grace of God because he has one mislead belief? No ofcourse not, he's saved because he trusts Jesus.
John,
Are we talking about the book of Revelation?
You seem to dismiss the claimed word of God based on their leader's action or your opinion of the reliability of their history. I don't think those issues need to correlate and those prophets could have actually told us the word of God. Some people reject Christianity based on same criteria.
Neil,
Will you be called son of God?
Sorry about missing the point, but I disagree that someone "can only record what he saw and heard", so many religions claim the same thing. And so may people have made the same claim
neil moore said...
[be influenced more by the multitude of words of man] has no future and I am not going back
If something has "no future" it does not mean it is not true. I'm trying to follow the truth.
Re: John, dream & eisegesis?; propably and at least speculation from my part. That's why I wrote "I don't know what it means" to make sure readers know not to take my word for it.
Re: chemistry; you did not really address my queston but are you implying NASA biologist Ghadiri is an agent of the devil?
Warwick,
You seem to complain about me not answering your question, but you did not answer any of my previous questions to you. Anyways...
I was using the Saint joke because John used the fallacy of "appeal to authority".
For example The Universal Life Church sometimes canonizes living people.
There was no six day creation, no flood and I don't know what Jesus said about the creation. And knowing Jesus is not an only way to the eternal life as many OT people seem to have an afterlife. Now why don't you address my questions above before you ask any more questions.
Hi Paul,
How do you interpret the Genesis creation account in light of Enuma Elish?
Peter said: "There was no six day creation, no flood and I don't know what Jesus said about the creation. And knowing Jesus is not an only way to the eternal life as many OT people seem to have an afterlife."
Peter, how do you, Peter,obtain eternal life?
Paul said: "Just want to say that firstly I do believe the Genesis creation account is correct and to interpret it in light of the theory of evolution is wrong."
OK Paul, if you a man, answer all of us this: How long did it take God to create the Earth?
Paul I am in no way in charge of this blog but speaking for myself I am convinced that our salvation is only through our accepting God's free gift of grace. Jesus died, paying the price for our sin, and rose again that we, if we accept we are sinners, and ask forgiveness, will be forgiven and inherit eternal life. There is no other way to God.
From what I have read over the past year or so those who started this blog do believe exactly that.
As far as I understand it this blog originated with Christians who felt the need to contradict the path that many in the Sydney Anglican community set out on, some time ago. In reinterpreting Genesis to fit in with man's falible ideas-long-ages & evolution-they are undermining the very foundation of the need for Jesus to come, die and rise again.
Genesis is the record of the historical entry of sin into our world, among other things. If Genesis in not an historical record, as read, then there is no historical basis for the gospel. If this is so then why did Jesus come to die?
The debate here is often rather technical only because some within the Sydney Anglican community have developed a rather convoluted, technical and academic platform upon which they endeavour to base a totally non-Biblical view of Genesis. A view in line with the current majority view of origins, but not scripturally based.
Psalm 118:8 It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man.
God bless.
Peter asked: "Will you be called son of God?"
Having received Jesus Christ as my Creator, Lord and Saviour I have been adopted into Him. So there is some validity in being declared a son of God right now.
Peter said: "but I disagree that someone 'can only record what he saw and heard', so many religions claim the same thing. And so may people have made the same claim"
Yes, they have. I can't comment on just what experience they all had. The Christian faith is contingent upon trusting in the Word of God. Everyone is responsible for what they decide to believe. If some go after false teachers then that is a shame and is, in the light of Scripture, costly. The Christian faith is a reasonable faith. I have reasoned it against most of its competitors and it is so complete that I don't need to test it against the others I don't yet know much about. I have been reconciled to my Creator through my Creator. I don't need anything else.
The Revelation passages I quoted to you make it clear, along with others, that Jesus Christ is God.
Oh, and in response to something you said to one of the others about the pre Incarnation believers. They have the same standing as post Incarnation believers having trusted in the Word of God (Heb 11:39-40)
Peter said: "Re: chemistry; you did not really address my queston but are you implying NASA biologist Ghadiri is an agent of the devil?"
I thought I had answered it. Stochastic chemistry producing only racemates is falsified when homochirality is produced by randomness. Intelligent design or manipulation of the conditions cannot be used to falsify it.
I wasn't thinking about the Devil or agents when I made the statement. I suppose, now that you have brought it up there can be occasions when our words or actions are amenable to the purposes of the Devil (Satan).
Paul said: "But, something even worse than that is this blog. If the people in charge of this blog truely loved the lord then their speech would not be the same ice cold talk of the pharasies"
Strong words indeed, Paul. You'll fit in really well here. Welcome, consider yourself one of us.
If you take a quick look throught the Gospels you will see some pretty solid exchanges between our Lord and the Pharisees but not only with the Pharisees. In defence of His "Father's house" our Lord even resorted to potential physical assault against ordinary folk. Well, perhaps not, he probably purposely missed them with the whip just to scare them out. The point is, it was not all 'beer and skittles' or, "love and gentleness" as you put it.
When the occasion warranted it seemingly harsh words were said.
Look, at least we are open here. We don't mince words. You know where we stand and you can deal with that. What bugs me so often is the veneer of niceness that prevails with so many in the Diocese, yet scratch a little under that surface and you will find several with a heart that is cold and hard as steel.
On reflection, I feel I could have been a little easier on Mike Paget. I just wish he hadn't gone over to the atheists to run us down.
Neil
Peter, as I see it you will not answer my questions as that would reveal exactly what you believe. Too revealing!
You wrote 'They do not resort to a name calling while arguing a theological point.'
Name calling- where?
'I think you would get your point across better with more friendly approach and maybe dropping your "magnificent garden" analogy. IMHO'
Peter I think you are an anti-Christian activist and I have no respect for your position. What misbeguided thinking has it that I should feel all warm and friendly with one who opposes Christ? Get real. Did Jesus feel all warm and friendly towards the money-changers or the pharisees, who He called 'a synagogue of Satan?'
I think the magnificent garden analogy is an excellent one. Many here are determined to tend the Garden God has given us in His word. We also protect it against the likes of you, who would poison what is there, and introduce weeds. Very apt.
'Do you believe that Sanhedrin met on the eve of the Passover?'
Yes! Do you know they didn’t? Documentary evidence please.
'I pointed out several Messiah/Son of God Jews who became popular. Please address the real historical issue.'
It is easy to claim anything but Jesus demonstrated He was indeed God on earth, the Son of God. Even His greatest enemies agreed that He claimed to be God, they took it seriously and executed Him because of this.
I once met a man who claimed to be a bird. He even perched in a tree. Strangely I didn't take him seriously.
Honestly I don't take you seriously either.
Conversely the apostles (except John) were all martyred for what they insisted was true. They knew it was true.
Neil,
My "Will you be called son of God?" comment was regarding Matthew 5:9 regarding if you have contacted Mike to make peace...
All faiths (not only Christians) trust the word of God and people born in Saudi Arabia will also state "I have reasoned it against most of its competitors and it is so complete that I don't need to test it against the others I don't yet know much about" about their faith.
John,
According to most religions I don't have to do anything. There seem to be a place reserved down stairs for me. ;-)
Warwick said...
Jesus died, paying the price for our sin, and rose again that we, if we accept we are sinners, and ask forgiveness, will be forgiven and inherit eternal life. There is no other way to God.
I have noticed that Sydney Anglican ministers advocate that still born babies do not go to hell. You seem imply they go to hell. Someone is a heretic here.
Warwick said...
In reinterpreting Genesis to fit in with man's falible ideas-long-ages & evolution-they are undermining the very foundation of the need for Jesus to come, die and rise again...
Genesis is the record of the historical entry of sin into our world,
Isn't the Genesis just a reinterpretation of the Babylonian creation story?
Peter wrote earlier:
'Do you believe that Sanhedrin met on the eve of the Passover?'
Warwick said...
Yes! Do you know they didn’t? Documentary evidence please.
Please read about Jewish writings; Misnah (Sanhedrin IV)...
"In non-capital cases the trial may take place in daytime and the verdict be given in the night; but in capital cases the trial takes place in daytime and the verdict is given in daytime. In non-capital cases a verdict of acquittal or of conviction may be reached the same day; while in capital cases a verdict of acquittal may be reached the same day, but a verdict of conviction not until the following day. Therefore such a case is not tried on the eve of a Sabbath or festival."- Herbert Danby, Tractate Sanhedrin, Mishnah and Tosefta.
Sorry to bring some light of truth in to your "magnificent garden".
Warwick said...
Peter I think you are an anti-Christian activist and I have no respect for your position
"A man reaps what he sows". If you don't respect other views, please do not expect others to respect your Christian views.
Warwick said...
Honestly I don't take you seriously either.
You don't have to take me seriously, but please seriously study some history and what the Bible says.
Peter regarding 'still born babies' (a furphy if I ever saw one) I imply nothing of the kind. what a ridiculous thing to say.
As you were not still-born you should ask for forgiveness and let our just and loving Lord look after those unable to ask. You have no excuse.
'Isn't the Genesis just a reinterpretation of the Babylonian creation story?'
No! You get stranger and stranger.
'Do you believe that Sanhedrin met on the eve of the Passover?'
Warwick said...
Yes! Do you know they didn’t? Documentary evidence please.
So Peter your big gun is to quote rules, rather than supply documentary evidence against what Scripture records as actually happening! What you quote details only what should happen. Have you considered that Jesus’ trial was illegal, not conforming to usual practice?
'Sorry to bring some light of truth in to your "magnificent garden."'
Peter God’s magnificent garden is lit by His light and no darkness can overcome it. As you oppose God you are of the darkness, but you don’t have to be.
'"A man reaps what he sows". If you don't respect other views, please do not expect others to respect your Christian views.'
Peter that is the nub of the problem. You propound your personal views, whereas I defend the word of God against those who would poison Truth. I have no desire that anyone would respect my views only that they would respect the word of God.
'You don't have to take me seriously, but please seriously study some history and what the Bible says.'
How revealing, you do not know me, or what I have studied. Your study, conversely, appears to be centered upon disproving God’s Truth, rather than understanding it. The reality of God really bothers you doesn’t it Peter? As it should.
Now what about my previous questions:
Do you believe God created over a period of six approximately 24hr days?
Was the flood of Noah universal, in the sense of covering the whole globe?
Do you believe Jesus was correct in saying (Mark 10:6)that man was made at the beginning of the creation, that in which we live?
Do you believe Jesus physically rose from the dead and is the only way to salvation?
Peter said: "My 'Will you be called son of God?' comment was regarding Matthew 5:9 regarding if you have contacted Mike to make peace... "
Ah! I see now what you meant. Best not use this verse as a goad, After all, United Nations Peacekeeping Forces are not necessarily sons of God in the sense that the Lord Jesus is using this phrase. I am more than willing to forgive Mike Paget for his offence to me if he desires forgiveness. He knows where I am. This is where the offence was committed, this then is the place to make amends.
Peter said: "All faiths (not only Christians) trust the word of God and people born in Saudi Arabia will also state 'I have reasoned it against most of its competitors and it is so complete that I don't need to test it against the others I don't yet know much about' about their faith."
Two points:
1. All faiths do not trust the Word of God (I notice you didn't capitalise "Word" so you obviously apply a distinction between what I said and what you were prepared to reply to. I use the title (and I believe traditional Christianity agrees) in the sense that the Apostle John used it (John 1:1-18) and, being consistent, in the revelation of Him in written Word.
Now, quite frankly, not all faiths do trust the Word of God by virtue of that distinction.
2. Unless the people of Saudi Arabia, like all other people, submit to Jesus Christ as Creator, LORD and Saviour (and Him alone) then they will receive what the object of their faith is capable of delivering.
Look, I'll let you into another secret. Islam is a religion of Satan.
Neil
Warwick said...
Have you considered that Jesus’ trial was illegal, not conforming to usual practice
I provided you documents why your conspiracy theory is unlikely, but why don't you provide some extra biblical documentation to somehow support your position. Would it be more likely that the writers of the Gospels did not know about Sanhedrin laws just as you did not know about them.
Warwick said...
you do not know me, or what I have studied
Based on what you have written here you have not studied ANE history, early Christianity, Judaism or Babylonian mythology. Am I right?
Warwick said...
Now what about my previous questions:
Do you believe God created over a period of six approximately 24hr days?
Was the flood of Noah universal, in the sense of covering the whole globe? ...
Based on what you have written here you have not even read my previous comments where. I already answered these.
neil moore said...
Islam is a religion of Satan.
How do you now that the "Satan" of Islam hasn't deceived you into Christianity or do you just presuppose that you are right?
Peter,
Let's all cut to the chase.
List, say, half a dozen propositions, which falsified or if demonstrated that the weight of evidence is against them, you would give up your beliefs (whatever they are and if you have any genuine, hard ones) and become a Christian.
For me, if evolution were true, then Christianity is a bogus religion.
Peter wrote 'Based on what you have written here you have not studied ANE history, early Christianity, Judaism or Babylonian mythology. Am I right?
No you are wrong.
However one does not have to do much study to understand that the sober description of creation in Genesis bears no resemblance to the fantasmagoriical'when on high' or 'The Skies Above' 'Babylonian' story
'The primitive scene is presented. Apsu (the fresh water god) and Tiamat (the sea goddess) give birth to Anshar and Kishar, gods representing the horizon, which forms the boundary between the earth and sky. To Anshar and Kishar is born Anu, the sky god, who in turn bears Ea (the goddess representing earth). This brood of gods is so ill-behaved that Apsu determined to slay them. Instead Ea kills Apsu and establishes her abode above his body. Marduk (the city god of Babylon) is born to Ea. Tiamat, transformed into a raging avenger of her slain husband, takes a new husband, Kingu, in place of the slain Apsu.'
We should take this this seriously?
I think you have studied just enough to convince yoursely (obviously an easy thing to do) that Christianity is wrong.
Pander to me and answer my questions. If it is true that you have previously answered them you will know when, so how about a little cut and paste? Otherwise maybe you could just answer them again?
John wrote 'For me, if evolution were true, then Christianity is a bogus religion.' I agree but this is too easy as evolution is a belief about the past not supported by proof.
As a small part of my study I read a book 'Evolution: A Theory in Crisis' by double doctorate molecular biologist Michael Denton, from which I quote:
‘The influence of evolutionary theory on fields far removed from biology is one of the most spectacular examples in history of how a highly speculative idea for which there is no really hard scientific evidence can come to fashion the thinking of a whole society and dominate the outlook of an age.’ p. 358
BTW I have met Michael and he indeed believes in evolution but accepts it is a belief not supported by 'really hard scientific evidence.' I suppose we could consider him a slightly hostile witness.
I also remembered the DVD 'A Frog to a Prince, featuring the God-hating high priest of evolution Prof. Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is asked to give an example of microbe to man evolution and he is left floundering. After a significant break, giving him time to ponder the puzzle, he returns with a classy piece of double speak which fails to address the question. He has no answer. The emperor has no clothes!
I also consider the number of the evolutionary faithful who have been asked how they would construct a scientific experiment to demonstrate that microbe-to-man evolution is a fact. No one has been able to come up with such experiment.
This leaves evolution and creation being both views of origins. The evidence, available to all, is much in favour of Genesis creation.
Both are faith positions. Both are biases however you just have to decide what is the best bias to be biased with don't you!
Also I suggest reading 'Refuting Evolution' 1 & 2 by Dr Jonathan Sarfati. Very convincing.
Peter asks: "How do you now [sic] that the "Satan" of Islam hasn't deceived you into Christianity or do you just presuppose that you are right?"
A perfectly reasonable question. The reply would ordinarily contain many supporting statement but I'll try to be brief and deal with the unexplained when addressing objections you submit later.
To come to conviction are we not left to examine life itself? Mankind, supposedly the higher order of life on earth, is somewhat an enigma - a repository for the full range of emotions from love to hate, from capacity to incapacity, from life to death. On the face of it mankind offers no solution.
What is observable in mankind, indeed in all living things, is a genetic code - an information storage and retrievable system. In mankind, it is said, resides the most advanced information storage and retrievable system known in the universe. Information is not matter. Matter is a carrier of information but is not information. Further, matter has not been observed to give rise to information.
How did this information arise? From that which we have observed in life all information systems have arisen from an intelligent mind. Examples are: a music score, language (oral, written and sign), Braille, Morse Code, the Rosetta Stone, computer programs/software, architect's plans. There are many more. All have required an intelligent mind as originator. Furthermore, information systems require a language convention i.e. an agreement between the sender and the receiver that certain a arrangement of symbols means something particular and, ideally, the information will produce a result.
Now if we see information systems in general arise only from an intelligent mind how much more does it follow that the most advanced information storage and retrievable system in the universe require an intelligent mind for its origin and, given the complexity and capacity of mankind's information storage and retievable system viz. genetic code, how much more does it require a super mind.
Getting back to your question, Islam and Christianity, along with several other belief systems, lay claim to knowing who that super mind is. Who is right? Who created life? (I believe I am right to ask who rather than what because intelligent mind is applied to a being rather than an object)
Again looking at life and, specifically, the information system on which life rides we are left to conclude that this non-material information system is an expression (or extension) of the mind who created it. This is the case with other information systems I mentioned.
Is it not reasonable to conclude that having created life, the author of life is all about sustaining life rather than destroying it? Is it not reasonable to conclude that the creator loves the created?
I could say much more but it would be too wordy. This is already a more lengthy a reply than is usual here.
Islam and Christianity both have an identity within their belief system of one called Satan - a destroyer, seeking to overturn the intent of the Creator and to bring down the created.
Wouldn't you expect a super mind to create in perfection, without flaw? I certainly would. But a perfect world is not what you and I or others experience. Something went wrong. To create living things in love and with capacity to freely love a risk is taken. As I read it, the Creator was fully aware of the possibility of rebellion and prepared in advance for this. Satan, a created being (according to infererence of Scripture) chose not to live as ordained and, in heaven and on earth, has worked against the Creator. He has worked to undo man and is the impetus for death entering the world.
In the recorded actions and words of Jesus Christ I see one who fulfils all the qualifications of the Creator. As Word (as Apostle John put it) He is an extension of God in information and, as carrier, in flesh. More so, such was His love for His creation that He came into the world for the express purpose of submitting Himself to be murdered by His creation so that the penalty for rebellion can be met.
Jesus Christ is and spoke of love and life. He encourages those who believe in Him to do likewise.
Mohammed encouraged believers to kill those who did not believe what he taught. Islam seeks to rule at any cost. This is the work of Satan not the Creator and Sustainer of life.
Neil
John said...
Let's all cut to the chase... become a Christian
I would become a Christians if there would be good evidence that Jesus existed, he performed most of the miracles mentioned in the Gospels and was resurrected. (Eye witness stories should be better than Sai Baba's followers as Christians do not believe in such a good evidence provided by them). It would also help if some of the magical objects from the Bible would be found or if Christian prayer would work better than prayers of the other religion.
John said...
For me, if evolution were true, then Christianity is a bogus religion
I understand. It is hard to believe that real Jesus died for a mythological Adam and Eve story. That would make no sense at all. Your premises is right, so now you have to reason your way to test both assumptions...
Warwick, You might not get a full insight to the story if you just copy/past from theologywebsite.com.
- In the Babylonian story Sea Goddess Tiamat was cut have to create the earth and the sky
- In the Bible story deep waters, Tehowm, was divided to create the earth and the sky
The word Tehowm (Gen 1:2) seem to have same root as Tiamat.
- Babylonian "main" war/storm/son god Marduk was born to Ea
- Biblical "main" war/storm/son god Yahweh was born to El Elyon
As you claimed you have studied these, so can you please point out couple of other parallels scholars have seen in these stories?
Warwick said...
If it is true that you have previously answered them you will know when, so how about a little cut and paste?
Peter said before:
"There was no six day creation, no flood and I don't know what Jesus said about the creation. And knowing Jesus is not an only way to the eternal life as many OT people seem to have an afterlife."
Warwick, if you defend your religion please do it with honour and truth. Please tell everyone why Dawkins (according to him) had a "significant break, giving him time to ponder the puzzle". Spreading one-sided misinformation does not honour your God.
BTW Dawkins does not hate g/God, you are creating a strawman or ad hominem. Evolution is not a faith position because it can be tested. We can actually see speciation in the nature. Conservative Christians are usually 200-300 years behind the science curve and because the theory of evolution is only 150 years old Christians are denying it now.
Warwick said...
This leaves evolution and creation being both views of origins
This is a bit of a false dichotomy. If the creation is true then we should be investigating whose/what kind of creation it is. Biblical one is just a faith position of one type of possible creation. Maybe the Babylonian story (or millions of other versions) is the right one and the Bible is just a poor copy of it.
Warwick said...
I also consider the number of the evolutionary faithful who have been asked how they would construct a scientific experiment to demonstrate that microbe-to-man evolution is a fact. No one has been able to come up with such experiment
What would this prove? Creationists like Neil would just say that this demonstrate that intelligence was applied and it was creationism. Why don't you tell us what kind of experiment could be done to demonstrate evolution to hard core creationist. Would it be Biblical or biological test?
Warwick said...
The evidence, available to all, is much in favour of Genesis creation.
What is the evidence? (please don't offer me any problems on the other options, just evidence to support Genesis)
neil,
Sorry about my spelling/misuse of spellchecker.
Do you consider a single atom as an information storage as for example oxygen atom knows how to bind to another to create gas and bind to two molecules to create water?
Your God seem to be a very complex, so what kind of mind created him? If God did not need a mind to be created/to exist why does DNA need a mind to be created/to exist?
neil moore said...
Who created life? (I believe I am right to ask who rather than what because intelligent mind is applied to a being rather than an object)
Beliefs are irrelevant if you want to find the truth. Why can it not be "it". Maybe an eternal black box in the centre of the multiverse created OT God, but he does not know it?
neil moore said...
Is it not reasonable to conclude that having created life, the author of life is all about sustaining life rather than destroying it? Is it not reasonable to conclude that the creator loves the created?
Would it reasonable to conclude that having created the God, the black box is all about sustaining the life of God? It is all speculations and who knows what the mind of God thinks. Maybe he is Allah and wants to deceive all Christians to hell??
neil moore said...
Wouldn't you expect a super mind to create in perfection, without flaw?
I don't know what super mind is capable of. People seem to be full of flaws. "Something went wrong" and God needed the flood to hide his first tries of the creation. Yahweh must also have a purpose for Satan as he is allow to influence the world (why did he plant those trees in the Garden of Eden as God could have put those somewhere else)
neil moore said...
More so, such was His love for His creation that
Excuse me, why such a great loving God need a torture chamber in the basement. Let's not claim that he "loves" his creation if he plans to provide torture facilities for them for billions of years for wearing wool-cotton mixture clothing in 200 BC. "Loving" entities do not torture others, they forgive would you agree?
Neil, thanks for the long answer but can I summarize it that you presuppose that Christianity is right and the "Satan" of Islam hasn't deceived you into Christianity. To make it clear you don't actually know. (Common position for people growing up in a Christian environment)
Peter said: "Do you consider a single atom as an information storage [sic] as for example oxygen atom knows how to bind to another to create gas and bind to two molecules to create water?"
A reasonable definition of an information system, given that which we observe as viable information systems, is one which is more than Shannon's statistical proposition. Statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics are employed. I am not a Physicist, (are you?) I am not well enough informed to answer your question with conviction but there seems to be some suggestion of atoms having potential to be information systems. Sir James Jeans, Physicist, in his book 'The Mysterious Universe' when dismissing mechanistic explanation for interpretation of nature said "The motions of electrons and atoms do not resemble those of the parts of a locomotive so much as those of the dancers in a cotillion." He further said "The universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears as an accidental intruder into the realm of matter; we are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter - not of course our individual minds, but the mind in which the atoms out of which our individual minds have grown exist as thought."
In light of such comment there may be ground for saying the very atoms of which our material universe consists are expressions in code of the thought processes of the creator mind.
Peter said: "Your God seem[s] to be a [sic] very complex, so what kind of mind created him? If God did not need a mind to be created/to exist why does DNA need a mind to be created/to exist?"
The implication that the Creator of the universe needs a Creator and so on and so on, is constrained by the perspective of the finite. In the past thirty years scientists have come to propose more dimensions to reality within the universe than originally understood. I am not right out there .... to suggest a Reality exists beyond the constraints of the space/time/energy/matter continuum i.e. an infinite Creator.
As I suggested in my reply yesterday, I regard the code for life to be an expression or extension of the Creator (or the Great Reality) carried on matter. Given that a corruption has occurred within the created by the activity of the created then a limit now exists in the extent of carriage of the expression or extension of the infinite Creator.
Peter said: "Beliefs are irrelevant if you want to find the truth. Why can it not be "it". Maybe an eternal black box in the centre of the multiverse created OT God, but he does not know it?"
I find it illogical to conceive of the 'impersonal' creating the 'personal'.
Peter said: "Would it [be] reasonable to conclude that having created the God, the black box is all about sustaining the life of God? It is all speculations and who knows what the mind of God thinks. Maybe he is Allah and wants to deceive all Christians to hell??"
See my replies yesterday and today.
Peter said: "I don't know what super mind is capable of. People seem to be full of flaws. "Something went wrong" and God needed the flood to hide his first tries of the creation. Yahweh must also have a purpose for Satan as he is allow[ed] to influence the world (why did he plant those trees in the Garden of Eden as God could have put those somewhere else)"
Concerning the judgment of the flood, it is a result of mankind badly using free will. If you had two choices would you wish
i) someone to be robot like designed to love you, or
ii) given the free will to love you for who you are?
Tests of love have the capacity to strengthen love as firing strengthens pottery.
Peter says and asks: "Excuse me, why such a great loving God need[s] a torture chamber in the basement. Let's not claim that he "loves" his creation if he plans to provide torture facilities for them for billions of years for wearing wool-cotton mixture clothing in 200 BC. "Loving" entities do not torture others, they forgive would you agree?"
At face value there certainly seems to be striking difference between Jesus Christ in the law of the Old Covenant and Jesus Christ Incarnate of the New Covenant. I have not yet come to a complete answer but given the way everything else holds together I believe I will find it one day. Thankfully, Jesus Christ fulfilled the righteous requirements of the law for me. Prior to His sacrificing of Himself, the Day of Atonement was an annual ceremony instituted by the LORD for cleansing of sins.
The words "torture chamber in the basement" is a loaded phrase. Those who choose to cut themselves off from the Source of life will get their way. I do not see anywhere in Scripture where the LORD is portrayed as a torturer. What does come to mind is the question of what it would be like being cut off from the Source of life. That which was created to bear the likeness of the Creator being without the Creator? Hmm! The scene of God in Jesus Christ agonising in the Garden of Gethsemene at the prospect of being cut off from God the Father on the cross comes to mind.
Peter said: "Neil, thanks for the long answer but can I summarize it that you presuppose that Christianity is right and the "Satan" of Islam hasn't deceived you into Christianity. To make it clear you don't actually know. (Common position for people growing up in a Christian environment)"
I was not brought up in a Christian environment. My family were not Christians. I was an evolutionist but upon exposure to a better explanation for the origin of life I came to accept Jesus Christ as my Creator, Lord and Saviour.
Your presupposition falls down. What I know is as much as I know I exist.
Neil
Could I suggest that the next person to post a comment do so in the comments section of the blog from Eric immediately post dating this blog.
It may save time.
If you don't think so, then press on here.
Neil
Peter nothing you write changes the fact that Genesis is a sober account and the Babylonian epic is somewhat akin to Jack and the Beanstalk.
Parallels? Given time I could come up with numerous parallels between Winnie the Pooh and Mein Kampf, or even Wind in the Willows.
Peter said 'Warwick, if you defend your religion please do it with honour and truth. Please tell everyone why Dawkins (according to him) had a "significant break, giving him time to ponder the puzzle".'
According to an embarassed Dawkins is one thing but according to the pre-edited version of the tape he was totally stumped. He looks about, opening and closing his mouth for 19 seconds before asking for time out to think. Yes I have viewed the uncut version.
This 19 seconds was reduced to 11 seconds in the final edited version. Therefore it is indeed true to say he was well and truly stumped.
Dawkins is indeed a God-hater,why would he have written 'The God Delusion' if he wasn't?
Dawkins also ridiculed God's designing skills, claiming the vertebrate eye is wired backwards, in another book 'The Blind Warchmaker.' Interestingly he was publically contradicted by an expert (Dr George Marshall, the Sir Jules Thorn lecturer in Opthalmic Science at the University of Glasgow) who said 'The idea that the eye is wired backward comes from a lack of knowledge of eye function and anatomy.'
He just cannot win.
Peter said 'Evolution is not a faith position because it can be tested. We can actually see speciation in the nature.'
Speciation gives no clue as to how one kind of creature became a totally different kind. For example how do we construct a scientific test (not theoretical) to show the reptilian lung evolving into the very different avian lung, all the while allowing the animal to breathe and compete to survive?
How do you test non-life evolving into self-replicating life?
Peter said 'Conservative Christians are usually 200-300 years behind the science curve and because the theory of evolution is only 150 years old Christians are denying it now.'
What a strange thing to say as the fathers of the modern scientific method and those who followed were Christians; such as Pascal, Boyle, Newton, Bacon, Hooke, Faraday, Linnaeus et al. You sure are lacking good research in this field Peter.
Also for just one example it was creationist scientist Richard Damadian who invented the MRI. Not bad for a creationist 200-300 years behind. Imagine what he could do if he caught up!
BTW Evolutionary ideas aren't 150 years old as the ancient Greeks had a version.
Warwick said...
This leaves evolution and creation being both views of origins
Peter said 'This is a bit of a false dichotomy. If the creation is true then we should be investigating whose/what kind of creation it is. Biblical one is just a faith position of one type of possible creation. Maybe the Babylonian story (or millions of other versions) is the right one and the Bible is just a poor copy of it.'
Only someone who hasn't done the necessary research could say that.
Warwick said
'I also consider the number of the evolutionary faithful who have been asked how they would construct a scientific experiment to demonstrate that microbe-to-man evolution is a fact. No one has been able to come up with such experiment'
Peter said 'What would this prove?'
Just above you wrote 'Evolution is not a faith position because it can be tested.'
You obviously mean it can be tested and verified but then ask 'What would this prove?'
Peter said 'Why don't you tell us what kind of experiment could be done to demonstrate evolution to hard core creationist. Would it be Biblical or biological test?'
As previously asked why don't you show us how microbe-to-man evolution can be tested by the scientific method?
Warwick said...
The evidence, available to all, is much in favour of Genesis creation.
Peter said 'What is the evidence? (please don't offer me any problems on the other options, just evidence to support Genesis)'
First tell me what you would accept as evidence and I will try to oblige.
I want to quickly return to some points Peter tried to make. I have no desire to dwell on these as I feel that they are, in the overall scheme of things, minor and hence a distraction from the main theme.
Peter stated he believed the Codex Bezae(hereafter called ‘D’) at Luke 3:22 was the more traditional and ancient. In this codex the Gospel writer wrote that the Father from heaven immediately following Jesus’ baptism repeated Psalm 2:7, “Thou art my son; today I have begotten thee”(a), rather than “Thou art my son; with thee I am well pleased”(b). At first blush it seems to support an Adoptionist view of Jesus’ sonship. According to this view, Jesus became the son of God rather than eternally being the Son of Jesus. He implies that the other Gospel writers have altered the text in order to cover up the Adoptionist view.
Let me state several reasons why I think Peter is wrong to believe that.
1. The weight of extant MS evidence “supporting” the Adoptionist view is in the minority. In fact, it is only D which includes this verse (i.e. Ps 2:7) at Luke 3:22. On the other hand, the MS evidence for (b) is Codices Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Washington, Koridethi, the Lake Group, the Ferrar Group, Koine, and various Latin, Syriac and Coptic versions. (a) is also supported by quotes in Justin, Clement, Origen, Augustine and the Gospel of the Ebionites.
2. The majority of Adoptionists took the position that Jesus was adopted by God as his son at his baptism, in contradistinction to this occurring at his resurrection. Why then would this have not been more saliently presented in the New Testament?
3. Both Matt 3:17 and Mark 1:11 in D retain the majority reading of what the Father said in response to the Baptism of Jesus i.e. (b). So why is its Luke reading different? If there really were an adoptionist truth and that the variant reading reflecting Psalm 2:7 were the true reading, why were Matt and Mark’s non-adoptionist verses retained? In other words, if the Adoptionist position is correct, why was it only reflected in Luke and not in the other synoptics in D?
4. If (a) is the correct reading and Jesus only became God’s Son at his baptism, why was he called more than 30 years before this, “the Messiah, the Lord” i.e. Jehovah? in Luke 2:11?
5. Neither Mark nor Matthew, which both predate Luke, present any Adoptionist evidence.
6. If Luke in D is truly supporting a baptismal adoptionist position, how is it that he in Acts 13:33 quotes Psa. 2:7 but applies it to the moment of Jesus’ resurrection?
7. On an entirely different point, Peter stated that the Jews had no problem upholding someone’s claim to being Messiah. This is problematic. Raymond Brown, in his ‘An Introduction to New Testament Christology’ (p. 73), makes the point that “in all Jewish history before A.D. 130…we have no evidence that any living Jew was ever referred to as the Messiah except Jesus of Nazareth.” If Peter can supply evidence to the contrary he may have a point.
Peter would become a Christian if
(a) there would be good evidence that Jesus existed
(b) he performed most of the miracles mentioned in the Gospels
(c) and he was resurrected.
(d) Furthermore he said that eye witness stories should be better than Sai Baba's followers as Christians do not believe in such a good evidence provided by them.
(a) Do you doubt that Heraclitus, Homer, any of the Pre-Socratic philosophers etc etc existed? On what basis? Why would Josephus mention him? More importantly, why would you not believe he existed?
(b) On what basis do you not believe that the miracles occurred?
(c) Ditto?
(d) I’ve visited Sai Baba and seen his “miracles”. He hardly does anything like what the Gospels say Jesus did. He “produces” some ash for the poor and gold watches for the visiting dignitaries. In any case, I’ve seen the film where you see Sai Baba palmed these gifts from his aides.
I also visited a guru in India whose followers swore to me he raised people from the dead. I spent 3 days eating, sleeping and hanging out with the highest in this guru’s sect. On my final night I said to them, “The God I follow, Jesus, his followers saw him raise people from the dead. This convinced them he was God. Ten of the 12 died deaths of martyrs. They only had to renounce their belief and they could have walked away from their execution. They didn’t. I now have a gun in my hand. I am now pointing it at each of you. If you continue to say Babaji can resurrect the dead and is God, I will kill you. Which one of you would be willing to die, now, at my hands?” All 14 or so of them hung their heads in shame and embarrassment in tacit acknowledgement they wouldn’t.
Let me ask you a question: Prove to me that Caesar crossed the Rubicon and that he was in Britain in BC 55.
Peter,
Let's face it. If your view is correct, then we are all just fodder for worms. You, Peter, are a worthless piece of garbage and don't deserve any kindness or respect. Why should anyone display any of this toward you because you'll die now, tonight, tomorrow, next week...a few years' time, but one thing is certain, you'll die and become my son's apple or T-bone. Of course, he'll not know it...and neither will you, because you're just a pile of garbage, pal, and long dead. You're going to die and no one will remember you because you're not famous, you haven't invented anything, you haven't saved anyone's life...and even if you were famous, had invented something or saved someone's life, you wouldn't know it or appreciate it because you're long, long dead. You're nothing but a worthless collection of chemicals which have, by chance and maybe a one-night stand, come together and will return to the earth. You're nothing to us, Peter. NOTHING. Sweet dreams, pal!
neil moore said...
The implication that the Creator of the universe needs a Creator and so on and so on, is constrained by the perspective of the finite
The idea of the Creator of the universe is also constrained by the perspective of the finite. What were the God's oldest thoughts; how far can he remember?
neil moore said...
I find it illogical to conceive of the 'impersonal' creating the 'personal'.
How is this illogical?
neil moore said...
the judgment of the flood, it is a result of mankind badly using free will.
God gave people free will and knew in advance exactly how they would use it, yet He got upset when it happened.
Neil, I appreciate your honesty about the doctine of hell. However I see God ordering killing of the children in the Scriptures, but why did God create Hell then? He was the author of evil?
Christians have been a majority in Australia, so if you grow up in Australia in culturally Christian family I would argue you grew up in "a Christian environment". (I assume your parent were not Muslims or Hindus etc)
Warwick said...
Peter nothing you write changes the fact that Genesis is a sober account and the Babylonian epic is somewhat akin to Jack and the Beanstalk.
Well then, take up my challenge and study Enuma Elish. You clearly do not have read/understood any ANE history.
Warwick said...
Parallels? Given time I could come up with numerous parallels between Winnie the Pooh and Mein Kampf,
Please provide the parallels in the first paragraph of both books in their original language (Just like Genesis and Enuma Elish). If you can not your position is completely refuted.
Warwick, You seem to still misrepresent Dawkins position, very unchristian to create straw men. Has truth no value to you? Does Jesus want you to misrepresent opposite views?
Dr George Marshall's point was that of course it right way around, otherwise we could not see.
Dawkins point was that nerves in Octopus' eye are in the back so they don't have a blind spot etc.
Please don't misinterpret opposite views otherwise you will not be taken seriously.
Warwick said...
Speciation gives no clue as to how one kind of creature became a totally different kind.
Please study some biology.
Warwick said...
What a strange thing to say as the fathers of the modern scientific method and those who followed were Christians; such as Pascal, Boyle, Newton, Bacon, Hooke, Faraday, Linnaeus
In the time when non-Christians were killed or ostracize all great scientist were Christians; what a surprise! Christianity stopped the science for 950 years and the Church's official position about many scientific theories were 200 years late. How come your list did not include Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus, Bruno, Serverus? Can you please tell us what the Church did to them? Please don't run away from this question.
Warwick said...
You obviously mean it can be tested and verified but then ask 'What would this prove?'
If someone hold a position that man can not test evolution because it implies intelligence was involved no proof can be provided. Please read about scientific theories how those are tested/verified and if they can be proven right.
Warwick said...
First tell me what you would accept as evidence and I will try to oblige.
Repeatable/observable scientific evidence. I don't rule out lab tests.
John, thanks for taking time to look at adoptionism.
Re 1) You offered us late manuscripts:
Codices Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus are 4th century
Codex Washingtonianus c.400
Ferrar Group is 7th - 15th century
Codex Koridethi is 9th century
Lake Group (9th?) 12th - 13th century
I offered (pre 1st Nicaea) mid 2nd century reading from Justin Martyr of that passage. The earlier reading is most like the correct one. (Why do you offer me 1000 year late manuscripts?) Please refer to older manuscripts of early Church fathers' writings on this.
Re 2) We only have late manuscript. The early manuscripts were not kept/distroyed after 4th century rewritings and theological wars.
Re 3) 2/3/4th century theological battles, adoptionist fell out of favour. Some groups had Matthew some Luke and not some many copies were around. The question you should ask is why don't you follow the 2nd century Justin Martys Scriptures?
Re 4) GLuke was not around 30 years after Jesus death. Nobody quotes it before 125 CE.
Re 5) We don't have early manuscript to prove this, but you can study what the early Chruch father said.
Re 6) Author of that verse probably did not write what Justin Martyr claims Luke did. This is not uncommon in the Bible
Re 7) Cyrus Isaiah 45:1, Simon son of Joseph as the messiah of Gabriel's Revelation. Athronges and Theudas mentioned by Josephus are also portrait as making similar claims. Of course we don't have exact quotes from them, but their followers saw messianic divinity in them and did not kill them for blasphemy.
Re a) Pre-Socratic philosophers probably existed. People are less inclined to make us stories about philosopher than religious figures. Josephus passages are a bit suspicious about Jesus. The possible "Brother" passage may have a seed of history in it. There were many Rabbi Jesuses, but the Jesus of the Gospel probably not. So what is the historical Jesus?
Re b) I have not seen credible evidences for those, just truck load of claims from all religion.
Re c) I haven't found any credible evidence for that.
Re d) You are so skeptical about miracle claims of other religions even when they have more and better eye witness accounts that Jesus. Your relation to Sai Baba is like Jews to Jesus 30 AD. Would you say if Jesus really performed miracles Jews would have believed? Wouldn't you say some of the Christian martyr stories are legends? (proof?) Plenty of early Muslims/Mormons/Mitras followers died as martys, so would they have died for a lie?
John said...
Let me ask you a question: Prove to me that Caesar crossed the Rubicon and that he was in Britain in BC 55.
This is a category mistake. Please compare Jesus to another religions figure; Caesar was a historical ruler and we have plenty of evidence. Nobody's world view depends on Caesar's existence and nobody had ax to grind about it.
John said...
You're going to die and no one will remember you because you're not famous, you haven't invented anything, you haven't saved anyone's life
That statement is actually false
John said...
You, Peter, are a worthless piece of garbage and don't deserve any kindness or respect. Why should anyone display any of this toward you because you'll die now, tonight, tomorrow, next week....You're nothing to us, Peter. NOTHING. Sweet dreams, pal!
Oh dear, yet another angry Christian. I have noticed that love preaching Christians are nice to me face to face, but so many of them are angry like you online. What is it about Christianity that makes them so angry and hostile inside and nasty to other when they can get away with it? I hope you will find love and peace in you.
Before hard hearted people of the Sydney Anglican Diocese begin pointing the finger in rage, let me attempt a rough translation of what John was saying in comments where re referred to Peter as "garbage."
I believe John was saying that a human being is nothing more than dirt or "garbage" if life formed by a naturalistic, evolutionary process. In touting the naturalistic, evolutionary process, Peter ought to recognise what several proponents of evolution have effectively said of man and though they didn't know him, Peter.
This then raises legitimate questions as to the worth of Peter along with any other person if, of course, we did evolve by naturalistic process.
On another issue,
Peter said to Warwick: "What would this prove? Creationists like Neil would just say that this demonstrate that intelligence was applied and it was creationism."
Peter, you just can't go on with this blind unwillingness to accept the obvious. You are demonstrating the same belligerence against the odds that many Atheists accuse Christians of demonstrating. To continue in this vein is to expose yourself to ridicule.
The experiment you cited, because of its clear elements of design, is more demonstrating a Designer for the origin of life than demonstrating a random cause of origins.
I will reply to other matters you just raised when I am able to get to the computer tomorrow.
Neil
I removed my last blog as it appeared twice. One being definitely enough.
carefully I placed the blog again, making sure it appeared only once in the dialogue box. Nonetheless it appeared twice again.
Now the remove this blog garbage bin has disapppeared. So I cannot remove this blog I have no idea what happened.
Happy New Year
1) Peter wrote ‘Oh dear, yet another angry Christian. I have noticed that love preaching Christians are nice to me face to face, but so many of them are angry like you online. What is it about Christianity that makes them so angry and hostile inside and nasty to other when they can get away with it? I hope you will find love and peace in you.’
Peter I think John’s point eluded you. He was, as I read it, (having read much he has written over more than a year) humourously saying that jusged by the beliefs you hold, you are an accident, here for no purpose, life’s a b***h and then you die. Then there is nothing. But you thought he was being hostile!
I have no personal fight with you. I continue to oppose the views you hold, as I believe them to be very negative and harmful to people.
Your views offer us nothing, no peace of God, no forgiveness, no basis for good and bad, right and wrong, outside of your changing opinions, then death! No wonder so many people take their own lives if their ‘food’ it this negative nothingness.
2) Peter wrote ‘Well then, take up my challenge and study Enuma Elish. You clearly do not have read/understood any ANE history.’
Only someone easily fooled, needing anything upon which to hang Biblical rejection would take this story as in anyway equivalent to Genesis 1-3.
3) Peter wrote ‘Please provide the parallels in the first paragraph of both books in their original language (Just like Genesis and Enuma Elish). If you can not your position is completely refuted.’
Not at all I’m old enough to know that people are amazingly creative, as you are, able to draw whole epics from almost nothing, a few words, and create parallels aplenty.
I remember when Kennedy was assassinated, how official investigators created an amazing scenario of conspiracy from notes and diary entries which suspects had made. Subsequently their theories were shown to be baseless. None the less these men, needing a culprit were lead into foolishness.
4) Peter wrote ‘Warwick, You seem to still misrepresent Dawkins position,’
Then Peter tell me how I ‘seem’ to misrepresent him. Pander to me and descend to the particular.
5) Peter wrote ‘Dr George Marshall's point was that of course it right way around, otherwise we could not see.
Dawkins point was that nerves in Octopus' eye are in the back so they don't have a blind spot etc.’
Wrong! Dawkins was writing about invertebrates. Read the book. His point, in his ignorance of the subject, was that the vertebrate eye is badly designed. He thought a human engineer could do a better job than God. Marshall’s point was that Dawkins lacks the necessary knowledge to understand.
6) Warwick said...
Speciation gives no clue as to how one kind of creature became a totally different kind.
Peter said ‘Please study some biology.’
I have Peter I have. When we study we rarely do the original work ourselves, but read what others, supposedly expert in the field, have written. True? I have done original research, but in this case sped up my understanding by reading the results of others research.
So Peter please explain to us how speciation gives clues to how one kind of creature e.g. a reptile, became a bird. While you are at it please also explain how the reptilian lung could evolve into the avian lung, while allowing this mixed creature to survive in a ‘dog eat dog world.’ Unless you can show how this can happen, using the scientific method, (developed by Christians) you are just talking belief.
7) Warwick said.
What a strange thing to say as the fathers of the modern scientific method and those who followed were Christians; such as Pascal, Boyle, Newton, Bacon, Hooke, Faraday, Linnaeus
Peter said ‘In the time when non-Christians were killed or ostracize all great scientist were Christians; what a surprise! Christianity stopped the science for 950 years and the Church's official position about many scientific theories were 200 years late. How come your list did not include Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus, Bruno, Serverus? Can you please tell us what the Church did to them? Please don't run away from this question.
Peter when was ‘the time when non-Christians were killed or ostracize all great scientist were Christians..’ ?????
You seem also to have the RC church mixed up with Christianity!
Don’t you know the Galileo Galilei’s problem with the RC church stemmed from the fact the church had accepted Aristotle’s view of astronomy. They were not defending the Bible against Galileo, but arguing from a wrong, non-Biblical foundation. This shows how dangerous it is to base views of reality upon mans constantly changing ‘scientific’ beliefs.
BTW I am happy to add Copernicus and Galileo to the list of Christian scientists, why wouldn’t I? There are dozens more.
8) Warwick said...
You obviously mean it can be tested and verified but then ask 'What would this prove?'
Peter wrote ‘If someone hold a position that man can not test evolution because it implies intelligence was involved no proof can be provided. Please read about scientific theories how those are tested/verified and if they can be proven right.’
Peter your English is often atrocious! You have lost me here!
Are you Peter Hanna?
9)Warwick said...
First tell me what you would accept as evidence and I will try to oblige.
Peter replied ‘Repeatable/observable scientific evidence. I don't rule out lab tests.’
Peter the scientific method is one of physically testing, and repeating the test while observed. Obviously this has to be done in the present, as neither microbe-to-man evolution or divine Genesis creation are happening at the moment. Therefore we can test neither creation nor microbe-to-man evolution by this method. We therefore cannot tender proof of either belief.
We can however look at the available evidence and form a picture of what this information from the past ‘says.’ This is not ‘proof’ but evidence.
Warwick previously wrote ‘The evidence, available to all, is much in favour of Genesis creation.’
Peter asked 'What is the evidence? (please don't offer me any problems on the other options, just evidence to support Genesis)'
Warwick replied ‘First tell me what you would accept as evidence and I will try to oblige.’
I repeat; I will endeavour to reply, but as testable, repeatable observable scientific proof is not available we will have to be content to analyze the available evidence.
Obviously I have to know what you would accept as evidence for Genesis creation before I can offer any.
Over to you.
Peter said & asked: "The idea of the Creator of the universe is also constrained by the perspective of the finite. What were the God's oldest thoughts; how far can he remember?"
Yes, and that is the perspective to which we are essentially constrained. I believe it to be a reasonable observation of the world that there is a great mind behind its origin and the biblical record I have found to be a historical record of that great mind relating to the created. I accept that record because its account of things best fits what I regard a reasonable person would see of the world. Some statements within the bible give cause to see that while God created time and space and relates within time and space He is also not constrained by time and space e.g. the appearance of Jesus Christ post resurrection in a locked house on two occasions (John 20: 19-29).
I cannot see it from the world and I am not able to deduce from the bible what God's oldest thoughts were. I have no difficulty believing that God has the capacity to remember all if desired (Psalm 139).
In reply to my assertion that I find it illogical to conceive of the 'impersonal' creating the 'personal' Peter asked: "How is this illogical?"
In varying degrees, animals and humans are relational beings, humans being more so. Humans have the capacity to love (among other emotions) and it is reasonable to conclude that this was instilled in us by the Creator. Unless you want to delve into fairy tales or science fiction you would be hard pressed to advocate that an impersonal object possesses and could instill, love in something else.
Peter said: "God gave people free will and knew in advance exactly how they would use it, yet He got upset when it happened."
I have no problem with this. I have gone to particular events with a belief of how some people there would behave. I knew that I wouldn't like that behaviour but went anyway. As I thought, the behaviour was sufficient to cause me disatisfaction. I later made a decision to remove those people from my social agenda.
Peter said: "Neil, I appreciate your honesty about the doctine of hell. However I see God ordering killing of the children in the Scriptures, but why did God create Hell then? He was the author of evil?"
The circumstances of such ordering vary. The incidents that come immediately to mind are, a) in Egypt - Israel were under hardship in slavery and despite a request for freedom and later warnings via plagues, Pharaoh would not let them go. Judgment was the death of the firstborn of Egypt - adults and children. b) Israel entering Canaan - the practices of the people of the land were detestable (Deut 20:9-12 lists some). The inhabitants and their ways would only be a snare to Israel if allowed to remain in the land. Some were not destroyed by Israel and their practices did become a snare to Israel.
If there is a particular incident you have in mind please let me know.
Life is a gift of the Creator. The Creator has the right to take away that which has been created. In all accounts I read in the bible the Creator acts righteously. The same can't be said of humanity, particularly in relation to abortion.
Peter said: "Christians have been a majority in Australia, so if you grow up in Australia in culturally Christian family I would argue you grew up in "a Christian environment". (I assume your parent were not Muslims or Hindus etc)"
You are correct. My parents were not Muslim or Hindus etc and I can assure you they were not Christian. The majority of people in this nation have not been Christian. Upon becoming a Christian you realise the great disparity between the ways of society and being in Christ.
Neil
Neil,
First you said that our perspective is essentially constrained but you also claim that the Creator not a black box created everything and remembers everything. Wouldn't you say your perspective is too constrained to claim that your statement is true? Why don't you hold the biblical position of believing that El Elyon is the father/creator of Yahweh (Deut 32:9 DSS)?
neil moore said...
you just can't go on with this blind unwillingness to accept the obvious. ... The experiment you cited, because of its clear elements of design, is more demonstrating a Designer for the origin of life than demonstrating a random cause of origins.
Can you please explain what kind of biological lab tests do not have clear elements of design? (I would think all lab tests are designed by scientists)
neil moore said...
I have no problem with this. [God gave people free will and knew in advance exactly how they would use it, yet He got upset when it happened.] I knew that I wouldn't like that behaviour but went anyway. As I thought, the behaviour was sufficient to cause me disatisfaction. I later made a decision to remove those people from my social agenda.
False analogy. You did not create those people nor the situation. You decided not to socialise with them, God decided to torture them forever. Why is it ok for God to be upset about how he created us. Shouldn't all be his glory or fault, none of the glory or fault should be given to his creation?
neil moore said...
The circumstances of such ordering [killing of the children] vary.
That would make God a moral relativist. Numbers 31 is a good example how God ordered to kill kids. You did say that "in all accounts I read in the bible the Creator acts righteously". So is killing kids sometimes ok based on the situation? Is God's command for his modern day followers to kill kids sometimes ok?
neil moore said...
Life is a gift of the Creator. The Creator has the right to take away that which has been created.
Why has God right to take away his gift? It does not sound like a real gift if one can take it back.
When you said that "The majority of people in this nation have not been Christian" I assume that you know that most people have claimed to be Christians. When people start looking for a holy book to study they usually take the most popular one. It does not matter who the "real" Christians are, but because its market share it pulls people in like Starbucks next to the mom&dad's coffey shop.
Warwick said...
He was, as I read it, humourously saying that jusged by the beliefs you hold
I guess it is Christian humour to call other people worthless garbage who does not kindness or respect. I guess that is the humour that started crusades (to clear the garbage). John was misrepresenting my position and then attacking it "humourously"; yeah right...
If that was just humour why did Neal had to explain it and tone it down?
Warwick said...
Your views offer us nothing, no peace of God, no forgiveness, no basis for good and bad, right and wrong, outside of your changing opinions
How sad it is that you don't even bother to learn the opposite views and continue to attack straw men...
Re 2 and 3) I just showed you that Genesis 1:2 was copied from Babylonian story and now you don't what to address the issue and where is your Winnie the Pooh and Mein Kampf comparison you promissed? (Do just make up stuff?)
Re 4) Please do your own home work and go to Dawkins website and you'll find his opinion what happened. One of his interviews also shows that. You should not be afraid to study...
Warwick said...
Wrong! Dawkins was writing about invertebrates. Read the book. His point, in his ignorance of the subject, was that the vertebrate eye is badly designed. He thought a human engineer could do a better job than God.
In "The Blind Watchmaker" Dawkins explains his view on human/vertebrates in great depth (p 17&93 explains the blind spot). On page 124 of God Delusion he talks about invertebrate eyes, but does not go to in such a great details. Can you please quote the book/page you are referring to if you still claim I am wrong?
Re 6) Speciation Reptile-Bird is a bit long subject to go through here, but if this blog posts an article about it maybe then.
Warwick said...
While you are at it please also explain how the reptilian lung could evolve into the avian lung, while allowing this mixed creature to survive in a ‘dog eat dog world.’ Unless you can show how this can happen, using the scientific method, (developed by Christians) you are just talking belief
Yeah right. And if you can not explain how DNS Lookup works you have a belief that Internet exists. ;-)
Warwick said...
What a strange thing to say as the fathers of the modern scientific method and those who followed were Christians; such as [Catholic] Pascal...
I am happy to add [Catholic] Copernicus and [Catholic] Galileo to the list of Christian scientists
and
You seem also to have the RC church mixed up with Christianity!
You seem to hold mutually exclusive views. You are not thinking logically and of course your following statement has no legs to stand on.
Warwick said...
I will endeavour to reply, but as testable, repeatable observable scientific proof is not available we will have to be content to analyze the available evidence.
Well then, please provide the available evidence to support you case. You made the claim, you provide the evidence.
C’mon Peter tell us: are you Peter Hanna?
1) Warwick said...
'He was, as I read it, humourously saying that judged by the beliefs you hold'
Peter replied 'I guess it is Christian humour to call other people worthless garbage who does not kindness or respect. I guess that is the humour that started crusades (to clear the garbage). John was misrepresenting my position and then attacking it "humourously"; yeah right...
If that was just humour why did Neal had to explain it and tone it down?'
Peter He wasn’t saying you or anyone is garbage but that if you are right, there is no God. Therefore we arrived by chance random processes and are therefore just matter with no purpose or reason for existence. We are here for a while, without any reason to exist, then we shuffle off. What a thrilling prospect. No wonder suicide is so popular. If you are right we are worthless.
But I don’t believe we are: the Christian view is that man was made in the image of God, but rebelled against God, and still does. That God considered man to so worthwhile He came as man to die in our place that all who sincerely repent and believe will inherit eternal life.
This free gift is available to all of us for the asking!
2) Warwick said...
'Your views offer us nothing, no peace of God, no forgiveness, no basis for good and bad, right and wrong, outside of your changing opinions'
Peter replied 'How sad it is that you don't even bother to learn the opposite views and continue to attack straw men...'
Peter having been a heathen before I became a Christian I think I do have a good idea of the other side. I therefore know what I am talking about. Are you saying my beliefs are inferior to yours?
3) Peter said 'Re 2 and 3) I just showed you that Genesis 1:2 was copied from Babylonian story and now you don't what to address the issue and where is your Winnie the Pooh and Mein Kampf comparison you promissed? (Do just make up stuff?)'
Peter you showed nothing.
4)Peter said 'Re 4) Please do your own home work and go to Dawkins website and you'll find his opinion what happened. One of his interviews also shows that. You should not be afraid to study...'
Peter I have read it but the unedited tape shows the truth of the situation.
5) Warwick said...'Wrong! Dawkins was writing about invertebrates. Read the book. His point, in his ignorance of the subject, was that the vertebrate eye is badly designed. He thought a human engineer could do a better job than God.'
Peter replied 'In "The Blind Watchmaker" Dawkins explains his view on human/vertebrates in great depth (p 17&93 explains the blind spot). On page 124 of God Delusion he talks about invertebrate eyes, but does not go to in such a great details. Can you please quote the book/page you are referring to if you still claim I am wrong?'
Peter I don’t have the book-the Blind Watchmaker-at home but will follow it up. The quote begins ‘Any engineer would naturally assume….He would laugh at any idea that the photo cells would point away from the light …. But this is exactly what happens’ Probably on p 93-94
6)Peter said 'Re 6) Speciation Reptile-Bird is a bit long subject to go through here, but if this blog posts an article about it maybe then.'
Peter I asked you to explain! I think you don’t have a clue about the subject.
7) Warwick said...
'While you are at it please also explain how the reptilian lung could evolve into the avian lung, while allowing this mixed creature to survive in a ‘dog eat dog world.’ Unless you can show how this can happen, using the scientific method, (developed by Christians) you are just talking belief'
Peter replied 'Yeah right. And if you can not explain how DNS Lookup works you have a belief that Internet exists. ;-)'
Peter I am no computer expert but well aware of the planning, and intelligence and testing which is poured into the construction of such systems. However, if you are correct, then a much more complex thing than a computer/system evolved by chance random processes. The reptile and avian lung are extremely different but if your view is true Harry the reptile continued with life while his lung was totally transformed into the avian lung. That is along with, and at the same time, as countless other organs.
How could this happen? How could you construct a laboratory experiment to prove this? You know you can’t. Therefore what you hold, just like Biblical creation, is a belief.
With the supposed evolution of the avian lung we are talking of no intelligent input. What in the world does that have to do with things which were designed by intelligence, with the end product in mind? They are opposites.
8)Warwick said... Peter's additions in brackets.
'What a strange thing to say as the fathers of the modern scientific method and those who followed were Christians; such as [Catholic] Pascal...
I am happy to add [Catholic] Copernicus and [Catholic] Galileo to the list of Christian scientists'
Peter do you not understand the difference between Roman Catholicism, the system, and the individuals? I cannot imagine where you got the idea I did not know there were RC scientists.
9)Warwick wrote 'You seem also to have the RC church mixed up with Christianity!
Peter replied 'You seem to hold mutually exclusive views. You are not thinking logically and of course your following statement has no legs to stand on.'
Peter Roman Catholicism is a religious system based upon Christian & non-Christian beliefs. Nonetheless there have been and still are dedicated Christian members.
10) Warwick said...
'I will endeavour to reply, but as testable, repeatable observable scientific proof is not available we will have to be content to analyze the available evidence.'
Peter replied 'Well then, please provide the available evidence to support you case. You made the claim, you provide the evidence.'
How can I provide evidence if you will not tell me what you would accept as evidence. A pointless exercise otherwise.
Peter asked: "Wouldn't you say your perspective is too constrained to claim that your statement is true?"
No, not at all! For a change, try being genuine in inquiry rather than trying to strain a gnat. What's your model?
Peter asked: "Why don't you hold the biblical position of believing that El Elyon is the father/creator of Yahweh (Deut 32:9 DSS)?"
The manuscripts of the Essenes containing one obscure statement inconsistent with accepted manuscripts are not worthy of my time.
Peter asked: "Can you please explain what kind of biological lab tests do not have clear elements of design? (I would think all lab tests are designed by scientists)"
I have responded to this question before. My time is too important to keep going over it. You have a whole natural world of opportunity for stochastic chemistry to be demonstrated as capable of producing homochirality. More than a hundred years of close scrutiny with zero result. Randomness is not on the same plane as "Designed" circumstances.
Peter said: "False analogy. You did not create those people nor the situation. You decided not to socialise with them."
It's about relationship and continuing or not continuing the relationship.
Peter said: "God decided to torture them forever."
Your words, not God's words. I have reponded to this before. Don't waste my time.
Peter said: "That would make God a moral relativist. Numbers 31 is a good example how God ordered to kill kids. You did say that "in all accounts I read in the bible the Creator acts righteously". So is killing kids sometimes ok based on the situation?"
The Midianites had seduced Israel into worshiping false gods rather than the Creator. I have already addressed this situation. A further thought, perhaps the Midianites were like present day Hamas who teach their children from infancy the ways of the adults viz. Hamas teach children to hate and kill Jews.
If that which has been given life chooses to not live as life was meant to be lived then the withdrawal of life is reasonable.
Peter asked: "Is God's command for his modern day followers to kill kids sometimes ok?"
Now I know you are you are just here for spoiling rather than to communicate and inquire in good spirit. I have already addressed this in speaking of the new covenant introduced by the Creator Incarnate. Stop wasting my time.
Peter said: "Why has God right to take away his gift? It does not sound like a real gift if one can take it back."
If the gift is abused to the detriment of any or all of the giver, self or others ... Yes!
Peter said; "When you said that "The majority of people in this nation have not been Christian" I assume that you know that most people have claimed to be Christians. When people start looking for a holy book to study they usually take the most popular one. It does not matter who the "real" Christians are, but because its market share it pulls people in like Starbucks next to the mom&dad's coffey shop."
Whatever! Straining at gnats again.
Peter, I value my time too much to waste it going over and over the same things with someone who gives the impression of being argumentative and looking to critisise at every opportunity.
An occasion arises when one begins to realise they might be casting pearls to swine. I am drawing very close to that view in respect of you. I want to spend time looking at issues warranting a blog posting on this site. Unless you lift your game you are off my agenda.
Neil
Peter wrote: Is God's command for his modern day followers to kill kids sometimes ok?
What is your view of abortion?
Sam Drucker
Warwick said...
Therefore we arrived by chance random processes and are therefore just matter with no purpose or reason for existence... No wonder suicide is so popular...been a heathen before I became a
Christian
Sorry, you have no idea what non-Christian views are. Was you life meaningless and were you suicidal before you become a Christian?
I showed you how both Babylonian and Genesis story has world created from the same substance (Using a same word) in a same manner. Why is this nothing; why is Genesis 1:2 copied from the Babylonians? Aren't all the Genesis stories copied from the Babylonians? Where is your Winnie the Pooh and Mein Kampf comparison you promissed? (Do just make up stuff?)
You said that you read Dawkins' reply about the interview pause. Please let us know what he said!
You paraphrased The Blind Watchmaker p93, but missed the crucial part using "...". I think you have just read this from a biased creationist site and have not bothered to do your own research.
Please do not suggest that I was previously wrong or Dawkins does not understand what he is talking about if you have not read the book.
Warwick said...
if you are correct, then a much more complex thing than a computer/system evolved by chance random processes.
Yet another straw man. Please study more biology.
Warwick said...
How could you construct a laboratory experiment to prove this? You know you can’t. Therefore what you hold, just like Biblical creation, is a belief.
Your conclusion do not follow from your premises. I'm sorry that you are not thinking logically.
Pascal, Copernicus and Galileo were Catholics. They were either Christians or they were not. You are still agruing irrationally both sides.
Re 10) I guess we can conclude that there are no evidence. (see my criteria before)
and no, I'm not Peter Hanna.
Neil,
Ok, I don't want to waste any more your valuable time, so here are my final comments to you in this thread.
I'm surprised that it is not worth your time to study the oldest know version of the OT book of Deuteronomy. Most Christians and Jews value DSS and at least I find those facinating to read.
neil moore said...
The Midianites had seduced Israel into worshiping false gods rather than the Creator. I have already addressed this situation. A further thought, perhaps the Midianites were like present day Hamas who teach their children from infancy the ways of the adults viz. Hamas teach children to hate and kill Jews.
I'm not here to spoil, I'm truly interested in knowing if there are Christians in Sydney who think it is Ok to kill non-Yahweh believing kids. So is it ok to kill children if they belong to Hamas?
So I let you have the last word and sorry if it feels that I am wasting your time. Maybe next time we'll try to keep the discussion on the topic of the post to keep it more focused.
Cheers
Peter
Sam Drucker,
I am pro-choice.
Do you think women performing an abortion should get a same punishment as a mother murdering her 8 year old child?
And what punishment should be applied if the mother testifies that the God asked her to perform an abortion?
Peter wrote: I am pro-choice.
Hypocrite!
Sam Drucker
Peter said: "I showed you how both Babylonian and Genesis story has world created from the same substance (Using a same word) in a same manner."
I may have overlooked this, but where were your details on this?
I'll respond to our unfinished topics later, OK?
Peter wrote: Most Christians ... value DSS
Justify.
Sam Drucker,
Please show me how I'm a hypocrite without misrepresenting my position, otherwise please withdraw the statement.
Re value DDS) Many Bibles (including my NIV) have now DDS reading footnotes, so authors/readers of the modern Bibles find it useful. I have also notice that Christians actually are interested to know why God tested Abraham, how he managed to bind full grown Isaac, how tall Goliath was and many other things found in the DSS text, but missing from the modern Bible. Do you think most people don't want to know those?
Now how about answering my questions to you...
John,
In my January 4th comment I stated:
- In the Babylonian story Sea Goddess Tiamat was cut have to create the earth and the sky
- In the Bible story deep waters, Tehowm, was divided to create the earth and the sky
The word Tehowm (Gen 1:2) seem to have same root as Tiamat.
1. Peter believes, quite contrary to the practice of research, that we should throw out all mss which do not support the Adoptionist position because they are all late. He puts the following dates up.
Codices Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus are 4th century
Codex Washingtonianus c.400
Ferrar Group is 7th - 15th century
Codex Koridethi is 9th century
Lake Group (9th?) 12th - 13th century
What he neglects to include is the date of his Bezae Codex. It too is a late document, later than Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Washingtonianus, coming in at around the 6th century. Bezae is also renowned for including bizarre and extra material.
The only other “support” Peter has are some quotes from the Church Fathers, not for Adoptionism, but in that they included Psalm 2, an indirect piece of evidence for the Bezae being a very early MS. Of course, apropos Justin’s inclusion of Psalm 2, there may be alternative explanations for its inclusion which have nothing to do with Bezae being around in the 2nd century. For example, Martin Hengel notes that Justin’s “divergent passages could be…free quotations…or midrash-like elaborations.”
Now, it’s certain that these early Christians were NOT adoptionists. Peter however, by implication, seems to think their inclusion of Psalm 2 means that adoptionism was the position of Christ and his disciples. In order to establish such a wild, tacit claim, Peter proposes a worldwide conspiracy that saw the complete removal of all references to Adoptionist ideas from the Gospels, in fact creating a series of false Gospels, the ones we have today. Of course, absolutely no evidence exists for this conspiracy, not even one statement. Furthermore, it wasn’t as though adoptionist ideas were unheard of or even unreported. The Early Church Fathers did report on these heresies and rejected them because of the fact that the Scriptures DID NOT testify to it. Also, the Church Fathers, whom Peter is all too quick to enlist as support for his unsupported and unsupportable conspiracy theory, to the man declared allegiance to the Trinity. One major reason for their high view of Christ was that several of them had been disciples of the disciples and were faithfully reporting what they had been taught from the source. We can ask Peter if any of the early heretics, including the Adoptionists, were ever identified as being so close to the source? Peter admits that there is not one single supporting document for the truth of this Adoptionist position, yet Peter wishes us to believe that this complete absence of evidence is not evidence for its absence but is proof solely because of Psalm 2.
Now, if Peter’s conspiracy theory were correct, this would necessarily mean that all the Fathers were out and out liars. This would then be like an Alice-in-Wonderland situation in which the ridiculously impossible is the plausible and the rationally sensible ignored or overturned. The documented evidence (see any earlier post) is that they all expressed a Trinitarian view. Not one expressed anything like an Adoptionist view, Justin’s inclusion of Psalm 2 notwithstanding. Even Justin makes it clear he believed Jesus was eternally the son.
There are several questions we need to consider. If Psalm 2 is such strong evidence for an Adoptionist view, and the Adoptionists pointed to this as evidence, why on earth would Jutin include it, given that he isn’t an Adoptionist (the evidence is clear on this)? To say that it was in the MS he was using isn’t an argument because he wasn’t writing a Bible but an apologetic for orthodox Christianity. If the Adoptionist position were indeed the orthodoxy, and was aware of, why would he, and the other Fathers, needlessly die for a doctrine which they knew to be false? If they knew all the time that Christ was not the Son of God eternally, yet wrote that he was, why stupidly go to the gallows for their Trinitarian views, views they would have known to be false?
Justin either was an adoptionist or he wasn’t. If he was, why did he say the opposite? If he wasn’t, why did he include Psalm 2 if he didn’t have to and if it was commonly believed to be unequivocal proof of adoptionist theology (as Peter contends)?
It should also be pointed out that unorthodox positions occasionally ruled the roost. For example, Arianism became the accepted face of the Church for some time before counsel won the day. Arianism was much like Adoptionism in that it reduced Christ to less than God. However, in some sense it was superior because it actually could argue from the Scriptures - though ultimately unsuccessful because of its very faulty exegesis - that theirs was the correct theological position. We have a complete record of the events that led up to this point in the Church’s history and its resolution. The Church did not hide anything. But Peter believes that there was this Illuminati-like group behind the Bible’s production which managed to secretly to get rid of all the correct [Adoptionist] bibles and substitute false Gospels. Hengel indirectly destroys such a proposterous idea in his ‘The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ’ when he demonstrates the clear internal documentary evidence from the titles of the Gospels. There was only one “message of salvation” and this was reflected in each Gospel’s title. Despite their being for evangelists, their works in the early Church were always referred to in the singular. Hengel states that “[t]his message was identical with the one Gospel of Jesus Christ son of God (Mark 1.1), as both objective and subjective genitive, because its contents and its authors were Jesus Christ alone.” In other words, the message was the same in all 4 Gospels. And what was that? Certainly not an adoptionist ideology.
Peter, while it is commonly believed that the absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence for its absence, this is only true in certain circumstances. It surely can’t apply here as you transform a clear vice into a virtue by claiming at every opportunity that a total lack of evidence is proof of just how ingeniously efficient these Trinitarian conspirators were at covering up the “real” Gospel. If there were any genuine truth behind your Adoptionist claim to this “real” Gospel then it would seem counter-intuitive and counterproductive for one Trinitarian writer, Justin, to use a single passage (which BTW is not an unambiguous prooftext) that would be support for the Adoptionist case when he himself does not support the Adoptionist heresy. Justin wouldn’t have been so stupid as to make such an egregious error and include this verse if the Adoptionist position were the true Gospel and he was trying to avoid it. It makes zero sense. Your really is an argument from quite deafening silence!
2. Was Justin using Psalm 2 to address the Adoptionist idea? No.
Here is the full text from 88:
[8] When Jesus came to the Jordan, therefore, being considered the son of Joseph the carpenter, and having no comeliness, as the Scriptures affirmed, He was thought to be a carpenter (for, when He was on earth He used to work as a carpenter, making ploughs and yokes, and thereby giving us symbolic lessons of the necessity of leading a just and active life); but then, as I already stated, the Holy Spirit for the sake of mankind descended upon Him in the form of a dove, and at the same instant a voice out of the heavens spoke the words which had also been uttered by David, when he, in the person of Christ, spoke what was later to be said to Christ by the Father: 'You are My Son; this day have I begotten You', meaning that His birth really began for men when they first realized who He was."
The whole passage is midrashic.
BTW, in the same chapter, Justin writes that “even at his birth Jesus was in possession of his power”, thus effectively killing off any argument that Justin was an Adoptionist. Furthermore, he writes a little later that, Jesus had no need for the baptism but because of the human race and that he “submitted to be born.” These are views the Adoptionist view would not permit. The final nail in the coffin!
3. I asked Peter the following: “Both Matt 3:17 and Mark 1:11 in D retain the majority reading of what the Father said in response to the Baptism of Jesus i.e. the verse in the other MSS. So why is Luke’s reading different? If there really were an adoptionist truth and that the variant reading reflecting Psalm 2:7 were the true reading, why were Matt and Mark’s non-adoptionist verses retained? In other words, if the Adoptionist position is correct, why was it only reflected in Luke and not in the other synoptics in D?”
Peter’s response was: “2/3/4th century theological battles, adoptionist fell out of favour. Some groups had Matthew some Luke and not some many copies were around.”
Peter, you did not answer the question I asked. You either didn’t understand my point or yours was a glib attempt to avoid the logic of my point. Without invoking undocumented battles and unsupported conspiracy theories, can you read it again and respond to my point. That is, if D contains the real theology, and the Father spoke Psalm 2 from heaven, why wasn’t that verse in the two other Gospels of Mark and Matthew in D? Matthew and Mark in D contain the verse which says “In whom I am well pleased.”
4. I asked Peter that if Bezae i.e. D, is the correct reading and Jesus only became God’s Son at his baptism, why was he called more than 30 years before this, “the Messiah, the Lord” i.e. Jehovah? in Luke 2:11 in D?
Peter responded by saying that Luke was not around 30 years after Jesus death. Nobody quotes it before 125 CE.
Peter, I don’t understand your point and it has, to my mind, nothing to do with my question. Read the question again.
5. I made the point that neither Mark nor Matthew, which both predate Luke, present any Adoptionist evidence.
Peter then asks me to “study what the early Church fathers said.”
But, Peter, all – let me repeat, ALL of these men were Trinitarians. There is no documented evidence that any early Christian was an Adoptionist. As Irenaeus argued, “But none of the heretics teaches that God has been made flesh.” The Adoptionist denies this basic Christian belief and so was recognised quite early for its heretical nature.
But of course, Peter may respond by claiming the Trinitarian conspirators destroyed all the evidence and it’s probably sealed in a hidden vault in the Vatican and someday someone will write a novel about it and call it..umh…The Rembrandt Code, with a film quickly following.
6. I asked: If Luke in D is truly supporting a baptismal adoptionist position, how is it that he in Acts 13:33 quotes Psa. 2:7 but applies it to the moment of Jesus’ resurrection?
Peter responds by claiming that the “author of that verse probably did not write what Justin Martyr claims Luke did. This is not uncommon in the Bible.”
Oh, knock it off mate. Are you for real? What, this is supposed to be a reasoned answer with some sort of documented argument?
Peter, you’re so good at making up silly excuse after silly excuse every time your conspiracy theory is shot down. What makes your case even more bizarre (bizarre, as in Twilight Zone bizarre!) is that you create another conspiracy theory to explain the first conspiracy theory’s failure to explain the evidence.
7. I pointed out that, with regard to Peter’s claim that “the Jews had no problem upholding someone’s claim to being Messiah”, Raymond Brown, in his ‘An Introduction to New Testament Christology’ (p. 73), had said that “in all Jewish history before A.D. 130…we have no evidence that any living Jew was ever referred to as the Messiah except Jesus of Nazareth.”
Peter offered up the following “rebuttal”: Cyrus Isaiah 45:1, Simon son of Joseph as the messiah of Gabriel's Revelation. Athronges and Theudas mentioned by Josephus are also portrait as making similar claims. Of course we don't have exact quotes from them, but their followers saw messianic divinity in them and did not kill them for blasphemy.
You didn’t read my quote carefully enough i.e. “no LIVING JEW”.
a. Cyrus wasn’t a Jew and the title in Isaiah is symbolic, not actual. Verse 4 tells you that Cyrus didn’t know God but he was used by Him to release the Jews from Captivity.
b. The dust has hardly settled from the discovery of the tablet which contains the so-called Gabriel’s Revelation. There is no actual historical figure on the tablet and is almost poetic, with many, many illegible words. Can you provide me the exact evidence where an historical Jew called Simon is actually called the Messiah at the time of his existence?
c. Athronges and Theudas are not called Messiah in Josephus’ works. Again, you resort to an argument of silence by stating that “we don't have exact quotes from them, but their followers saw messianic divinity in them and did not kill them for blasphemy.” Great argument. Very convincing.
8. Peter claims that (a)Pre-Socratic philosophers probably existed. (b) People are less inclined to make us stories about philosopher than religious figures. (c)Josephus passages are a bit suspicious about Jesus. (d)There were many Rabbi Jesuses, but the Jesus of the Gospel probably not.
a. Mere assertion. Based on what?
b. Mere assertion. Based on what?
c. Mere assertion. Based on what?
d. Mere assertion. Based on what? In any case, 100 years in the future someone will reason, in imitation of Peter’s impeccable ratiocination: “There were lots of Peters in this world so therefore the Peter of this blog is an invention.” According to your own irresistible logic we now know you don’t exist. What are you going to do about that, you non-existing person, you?
I also mentioned Heraclitus. There are only a few lines or so indirectly from this man, the MSS evidence more than a thousand years later. The same for all the Pre-Socratics: most, if not all, of these works are second- or third-hand quotes of quotes in very late commentators.
And Homer. Again, pretty thin evidence for his existence.
So, you should not believe their existence if you were logically consistent. But that’s the point, you DON’T want to hold that Jesus existed because you’d have to actually start taking Christianity seriously. It really is jut a case of any pseudo-intellectual port in a storm, isn’t it Peter!
9. Peter: “You are so skeptical about miracle claims of other religions even when they have more and better eye witness accounts that Jesus. Your relation to Sai Baba is like Jews to Jesus 30 AD. Would you say if Jesus really performed miracles Jews would have believed? Wouldn't you say some of the Christian martyr stories are legends? (proof?) Plenty of early Muslims/Mormons/Mitras followers died as martys, so would they have died for a lie?”
As for Sai Baba, I’ve seen the tricks. And so have the atheists in India. They were caught on film which you can probably download. He didn’t raise anyone from the dead. No one saw him raise people from the dead or cure leprosy. He “manifests” ash and gold watches, the former for the poor and the latter for visiting dignitaries.
I sat outside his ashram in Puttaparthi one day having a drink. Along came two Dutch disciples of this “god”. They sat next to me. I said to them, “You know, Sai Baba is not God.”
They immediately threw back, “Yes, he is.”
I responded by pointing to the leper standing next to me, “If he were God, he would come out here and give this man a new body.”
“Oh, no,” they claimed back, “Sai Baba couldn’t do that because he would then be interfering with the Law of Karma.”
“What,” I asked, “Sai Baba is under the Law of Karma? I thought he was supreme God?”
“He is but you don’t understand,” they reckoned. “This man is enjoying the fact that in this life he is working off his bad karma brought about by his sins of his former lives.”
I quietly but psychopathically asked, “How about I bend down and break both your legs and you tell me how you enjoy knowing that you’re working off your bad karma brought about by the sins of your former lives.”
They ran off in fear for their, I believe, 278th and 6,786th life respectively
Can you give me historical evidence for any disciples of Muhammad, Joseph Smith, or Mitras who, when given a chance to recant their belief that Jesus resurrected from the dead, like the disciples of Jesus were given, refused and quite willingly were executed?
10. I said: Let me ask you a question: Prove to me that Caesar crossed the Rubicon and that he was in Britain in BC 55.
Peter said: “This is a category mistake. Please compare Jesus to another religions figure; Caesar was a historical ruler and we have plenty of evidence. Nobody's world view depends on Caesar's existence and nobody had ax to grind about it.”
Sorry, Peter, it isn’t a category mistake. You beg the question that Jesus’ existence is not a question of historicity, which is obviously a pretty nonsense position to propose. Why don’t you attempt to prove that it is a category mistake instead of merely asserting it.
Religion has nothing to do with it. Above all things, Christianity claims that the events are historical and, indeed, its whole claim to truth collapses if it isn’t. The only other religion I believe that claims for itself historical truth and which would logically end its truth value if not historically true is Mormonism (of course, there were no Jews in Central America so that quickly ko’s this American import’s silliness).
BTW, since the Pope is a religious figure therefore his existence shouldn’t be addressed in terms of historicity?
I didn’t ask you to prove Caesar’s existence; I asked you to prove he crossed the Rubicon. What evidence is there for that?
11. Peter said that: “In the Babylonian story Sea Goddess Tiamat was cut have to create the earth and the sky [and] in the Bible story deep waters, Tehowm, was divided to create the earth and the sky. The word Tehowm (Gen 1:2) seem to have same root as Tiamat.”
That’s it? That’s all the similarities you can muster up from comparing the two accounts?
I suggest you read Alexander Heidel’s ‘The Babylonian Genesis’. I’ll refer to a few of his points:
a. Though having the same root, the two do not denote the same thing.
b. Tiamat is a mythical personality, whereas Tehom is a thing, the water of the deep.
c. Such separation of heaven and earth is “common property of all cosmogonies.”
In all the religions I’ve studied I’ve yet to meet one which is less free of the mythical, warring gods that typifies pagan dramas than the Genesis account. It presents itself as calm, sober, historical account of what happened in the beginning. Of course, you won’t believe that but the record of religious comparison demonstrates otherwise. Genesis is unlike any other “religious” account of origins. It is unique which would seem to say that Genesis is the original.
In any case, adapting Peter’s rule in which you claim that the more difficult reading tends to be the older version, then Genesis must be older as it is perspicuously obvious that the Genesis text is more complex (not to be equated with mere length!) as it contains an unambiguous, day-by-day breakdown of God’s acts and a more elaborate discussion of these acts. Also, the numerical, literary and linguistic complexity, as pointed out by Kay and Dickson, elevates the Genesis text way beyond any reasonable comparison with the
Babylonian one.
12. I claimed that the Koran is full of grammar errors and that, by the Muslims’ own standard, the Koran can’t be from God. Peter then claims that this is wrong as “any Muslim apologist can help you and explain why you are wrong.”
Sorry, Peter, but in the Arabic there are lots and lots of mistakes. At one time I could read and write Arabic and I could see the mistakes with my own eyes. You can search the web for a site called Christianity Answers Islam by a chap called Newton and/or Green which addresses this subject and read the Muslim responses. The Muslims start inventing rules of grammar. I once asked an Arabic academic from ANU about this and he said, “Of course. Everyone knows there are grammatical errors in the text.” Peter, even Aiysha in
the Hadiths mentions a major one.
13. Peter claims: “John 19:33-35 tells that "The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe" and that is true because it says so? Is that circular reasoning?”
Ahh, no. It’s called swearing an oath that he was an historical witness to these things that happened. So, in a court of law when you take an oath that you saw Sally steal from Bob, the judge will throw out your testimony because it is circular reasoning?
Tell me some other religious figures who take an oath that what they saw actually
happened and we can do some comparison and contrasting.
Peter wrote: Most Christians ... value DSS
Facts please. No imagining. Justify!
Peter wrote: I am pro-choice
You approve 'choice' for killing defenceless human life.
John,
Thanks for your long answer.
Can you please stop the nonsense claim that I advocate some kind of "world wide conspiracy", "Fathers were out and out liars" or "Alice-in-Wonderland situation" and address the issues. Thanks.
John said...
Peter admits that there is not one single supporting document for the truth of this Adoptionist position, yet Peter wishes us to believe that this complete absence of evidence is not evidence for its absence but is proof solely because of Psalm 2.
You are misrepresenting my position. As you can see above you asked me about NT manuscripts, not all manuscripts. (there are actually old Latin manuscripts but lets ignore those) We have plenty of Church father quotes about the Gospel text, so we know what their version Gospels said. No conspiracy theory need when we have the evidence.
You offer me manuscripts from 4th- 15th Century. I showed how that passage was present from the 2nd - 6th Century. (Clement ~used that saying also in the 1st Century) Even Origen in 3rd century wrote: "None of these testimonies, however, sets forth distinctly the Saviour’s exalted birth; but when the words are addressed to Him, “Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee,” this is spoken to Him by God, ... The day is to-day with Him in which the Son was begotten." -Commentary on the Gospel of John
(Remember he was "the only begotten Son")
I offered you much earlier documents but you are still arguing about this. Please offer me pre-Nicean evidence as I wrote before.
John said...
The documented evidence (see any earlier post) is that they all expressed a Trinitarian view.
Just tell us now who was the first Christians who stated that the Holy Spirit is God or described a trinity? You haven't told us that yet even when I have asked that before. And tell us where Justin wrote about it as you claimed...
Re 2) So you claim that Justin purpously wrote an incorrect version of that part of the story even when he had the right version of it. Are you calling him a liar? (who is the conspiracy theorists here?)
Re 3) Matthew and Mark do not agree with Luke in many things. Why is it surprising that the don't agree with this verse? For example what were the last words of Jesus on a cross?
John said...
"Without invoking undocumented battles...
and
"Arianism was much like Adoptionism"
You seem to contract yourself. Surely you have also heard about Marcionism, Nestorianism, Docetism, etc all well documented.
Re 4) Sorry, you are right, I misunderstood your point. Come on now, Luke was not there to know exactly what the words spoken were. (Greek text seem to say "Christos" not Messiah like you interpolated) The NT has plenty of verses that are not direct quotes; again for example what were the last words of Jesus on a cross?
Re 5)
John said...
let me repeat, ALL of these men were Trinitarians
Stop repeating yourself and please provide a pre-170 AD quote of a Christians who stated that the Holy Spirit is God or described a trinity?
Re 6) No need to invoke an Twilight Zone claim. Notice that I have quoted early Church fathers; why don't you do that too to support your argument rather that offer silly rhetoric.
Acts offer us Paul's view of Jesus in 13:33. Again it disagrees with GJohn, GMatthew and GHebrews. We know some other crucial verses of GLuke are not in the oldest manuscripts we have, NT got changed a lot.
According to your claim Justin Martyr wrote midrashic and I claim he wrote the what he read in the Gospels. Why don't you offer us your theory why Justin just made up stuff? Was he lying, pushing adoptionism or something else?
Re 7) so what is your point about "no living Jew"?
From Israel Knohl speech abstract:
"The second part of the Gabriel Revelation focuses on death and resurrection – and the blood of the slain. The last paragraph cites the words of the Archangel Gabriel who commands a person to return to life after three days: “By three days, live.”
In my lecture I will deal with the possible connection between the figure of Ephraim, the Messiah Son of Joseph, and the image of Jesus in the New Testament. I will also explore the possible link between the resurrection “by three days” commanded by Gabriel in the Gabriel Revelation and the resurrection of Jesus “on the third day.”"
How close do you want Ephrahim/Simon story to be to Jesus' story. To me that looks like another Messiah predating Jesus by fifty years.
Re 8) a) They has less reason to make up stuff. (yes, just my opinion)
b) There are 30000 Christians demoninations, not that many opinions of Socrates. Are Mormons, Catholic and JW correct about Jesus? Have you listen to a TV preachers of their claims of Jesus? People make stuff up about Jesus all the time.
c) We have different version of both passages and scholars don't agree on what was there originally.
d) Many Christians believe in Jesus miracles while rejecting miracles of Mithras/Vespasian/Heracles/etc. In a same way you reject miracles of other Gods/religion I reject Jesus' miracles. What is your bases of rejecting Mithras' miracles?
John said...
you should not believe their [Heraclitus..] existence if you were logically consistent. But that’s the point, you DON’T want to hold that Jesus existed because you’d have to actually start taking Christianity seriously.
Maybe there was someone who is the bases of Heraclitus' stories in a same way as maybe there was someone Jesus stores are based on. I have no problem assuming that Homer wrote his books just like accepting someone called John wrote the fourth Gospel. Help me out, what's wrong with that view.
Re 9)
John said...
As for Sai Baba, I’ve seen the tricks...
No one saw him raise people from the dead or cure leprosy.
The point was that tricks work! Modern and ancient miracle men performed tricks. The question is why to you believe one of them was real while rejecting others. Sai Baba's followers can testify that he raised people from the dead, why are you so skeptical with all the credible eye witness stories. Those eye witnesses are surely not lying or are they tricked...
You scared off Sai Baba's followers? I don't understand your point, sorry...
Many first generation Mormons were ready to die for Joseph Smith, first generation Muslims died for Mohammed and several Priests of Mithras died as martyrs in the hands of Christians. Would they have died for a lie? Did first generation followers of Jim Jones, David Koresh or Solar Temle cult (1994) died for a lie? So many first generation followers of many religions have died willingly, what is so special about Christianity?
Can you please quote the stories and sources how deciples were martyred, so we can check the credibility of your claims?
Re 10)
I think most historian say that most events in the history can not be "proven" we are just talking about probabilities...
You need to separate the existence of Rabbi Jesus and Jesus who performed miracle and rose from the dead. You can compare the historicity of Rabbi Jesus to Vespasian, or compare Jesus of the Gospels and Vespasian's miracle healings, or compare if Caesar crossed the Rubicon or Jesus crossed the sea of Galilee. Just compare like for like.
Re 11)
First thanks for acknowledging that world was created from Tehowm (the primeval chaos ocean) not from "nothing" like most Christians claim.
Both Genesis and Babylonian stories start by explaning how heavens and earth were created from primeval chaos waters which was split half and the word used to describe this has the same root. According to the Bible Abraham (and exiled Jews) came from the Babylonia area. Not to mention Babylonias had flood story including a tree of life, the Tower of Babel story etc before the OT. What do you think the odds are that the Bible story is unique like you claim. BTW how is The Tower of Babel story a sober historical account? Who was listening and recording the conversation between Gods?
John said...
adapting Peter’s rule in which you claim that the more difficult reading tends to be the older version, then Genesis must be older as it is perspicuously obvious that the Genesis text is more complex
More difficult reading rule is usually applied to a word/sentence/verse in same book. Dating Genesis and Enuma Elish is a different issue.
re 12) Muslims don't seem to agree with you or "Christianity Answers Islam" otherwise they would leave their religion. Do you think they are blinded by their religion?
re 13) John said 28 December, 2008 ...
"the disciple John, who was an actual witness to these events"
So you believe John, because he met (is?) somebody who testified it is true and we know that because he said so? So how do we know it is true, because he said it is true? (not circular??) I have a cheap bridge in Booklyn to sell if you take my friends testimony on that and it is true because he said so. ;-)
In a court of law the Judge does not only take a word of a single person, he takes in everyone's testimony. Mark, Luke, Matthew and John disagree what happen during the passover. A judge would not believe them...
John said...
Tell me some other religious figures who take an oath that what they saw actually happened
Pretty much every cult leader can take an oath that their claim is true. What is so special about an oath. Every Christian takes an oath in the court of law (should they do that?) yet we don't automatically believe their testimony either.
John, I do appreciate you taking time answering me.
sam drucker,
You don't seem to have anything to contribute to this thread. Please stop trolling and take a note how John and Neil use their time and offer their well argued opinions.
Peter,
Regarding the voice from heaven in Gospels, do you believe that that incident actually occurred, in any form?
John,
To me it looks like an ancient Greek literature device used also for example in Seneca's Hercules Oetaeus. It is the narrators way to express what he perceives a God's (writers?) opinion. It is also little like Pat Roberston writing a book how he heard that God spoke to him and told the major events of 2008 in advance. So, I think Luke believed that God communicated his will to his people (as per Luke 2:11), the transmission type is a secondary in importance.
Peter,
1. So it never really happened?
2. What evidence can you provide that Matthew, Mark and Luke borrowed from Greek literary devices, in effect turning their backs on the Hebraic culture that is so obviously the dominating culture in these Gospels?
3, Can you formerly set out these similarities so we can actually see them rather than putting faith in your mere assertion?
John,
1) Probably not. Many ancient heros/emperor/demigods had miraculous birth story with human mother and divine father. It was not considered a lie, but more like an honour.
Gospels were written in Greek (Matthew?) so it is expected that all the authors had been trained and read ancient popular Greek literature. I don't think they were turning their backs on Hebraic culture; Jesus was a Jew and Christianity was/is based on Judaism. They used Hebrew numerology 3/12/40/70, based the story on OT prophesies, but it looks like the authors did not know about the local geography...
Dennis R. MacDonald has a book "The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark" (easy reading). You might want to google that to read the reviews to get an idea what he thinks. Amazon review seems to be very polarized like all the books which might be seen critical towards a belief.
If you are looking for ancient pre-Christian writings for comparison check out Euripides' play the Bacchae. People have seen similarities in that with Paul's conversion story. For example both are using the old Greek saying “kicking against the goad” (Acts 26:14 ASV).
If you look parallels in Jesus' stories, Heracles is a good starting point (Seneca, Homer, Diodorus Siculus). They have similar birth story, fulfilled a prophecy, had Earthquake and darkness during their deaths etc.
Peter wrote: You don't seem to have anything to contribute to this thread. Please stop trolling and take a note how John and Neil use their time and offer their well argued opinions.
You made a matter-of-fact statement and I am trying to get you to justify it. You seem to pick others up on detail but whinge when the favour is returned.
That too is hypocritical.
Peter said: "If you look parallels in Jesus' stories, Heracles is a good starting point (Seneca, Homer, Diodorus Siculus). They have similar birth story, fulfilled a prophecy, had Earthquake and darkness during their deaths etc."
Can you provide me with the earliest MSS on these claims?
John,
I don't have a JSTOR access at the moment. When I have a chance to go to the Fisher library I might try to look it up. Are you considering that one copied from another?
Peter wrote: Evolution is not a faith position because it can be tested. We can actually see speciation in the nature.
Person A "Look! Who's that over there?"
Person B "That's Charles Darwin."
Person A "I thought he died long ago?"
Person B "Scientifically speaking he nearly died - from a lack of Phylogeny - but his supporters came and propped him up."
Person A "What did they prop him up with because he sure looks to be tottering toward a fall?"
Person B "Hmmph, in desperation they grabbed for anything they could lay their hands on. Sadly, all they could hobble together was a slender reed of Punctuated Equilibria dressed in Speciation."
Person A "Oh, it's a pity they couldn't find something scientifically stable isn't it?"
Person B "Yes, it's only a matter of time for the poor old chap and he'll come crashing down never to rise again!"
I'll bite. Tell me Peter, what would falsify speciation?
Peter,
Possibly. But I'd also like to know if the records even have these "similar" events in them. I've got a copy of this silly book called "The world's 16 crucified saviours" which has what you've claimed and more. However, there is not one piece of evidence that supports any of the book's claims. It's unsupportd assertion after another.
LOL! The world's 16 crucified saviours is even rejected by informed misotheists as totally unreliable. CMI just had something on that and similar nonsense: Was Christianity plagiarized from pagan myths? Refuting the copycat thesis.
See also A Critique and Analysis of The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark and Did The God of Wine influence Christian Beliefs? (Dionysius/Bacchus) by J.P. Holding
This ignorant Christophobe "Peter" tries to find Christian suicide bombers. Yet all he can find are Arabs in Islamofascist countries, so have been highly compromised with Islam. Liberal "Christians" reject the Bible, so all they have are the fashions of their culture.
Even the liberal Wikipedia notes:
"In the U.S., violence directed toward abortion providers has killed 7 people, including 3 doctors, 2 clinic employees, a security guard, and a clinic escort. ...
"Nearly all mainstream pro-life organizations reject violence as a form of opposition to abortion. Advocates of force tend to be small groups or lone individuals. ...
"In response to incidents of anti-abortion violence, many groups in the pro-life movement have sought to isolate themselves from violent factions in a number of ways. Many pro-life advocates have vocally condemned violent actions against abortion providers as running contrary to the values and goals of the right-to-life cause.
"Following the 1998 bombing of a clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, Feminists for Life offered a reward for the arrest and conviction of those responsible. In 2001, Priests for Life, a group of pro-life Catholics in the United States, put in place a $50,000 reward for information that leads to the arrest of fugitives wanted in connection with violence against abortion providers. The American Life League issued a "Pro-life Proclamation Against Violence" in 2006."
In the early Church, the debate was mainly about the person and work of Christ. Therefore Melito's clear statements on the divinity of Christ place him squarely in the Trinitarian position, and against adoptionist or Arian views.
John,
I have not read "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors", but there is a short review of it in infidels.org by Richard Carrier. Based on that I might not read it...
Ktisophilos said earlier...
This ignorant Christophobe "Peter"
Oh dear, yet another angry Christian. What is it about Christianity that makes them so angry and hostile inside, and nasty to other when they can get away with it?
Ktisophilos said earlier...
"there are no Christian suicide bombers"
and now
"This ignorant Christophobe "Peter" tries to find Christian suicide bombers. Yet all he can find are Arabs in Islamofascist countries"
This is called "Moving the goalpost" fallacy. When I showed you that you are unaware of the facts you move your argument. Illogically you also try to claim that if you don't know the facts that means I am ignorant.
Ktisophilos said earlier...
"the bombings of abortion clinics, but they are few and far between and are condemned by pro-life groups:
When I pointed out that there were abortion clinic related incidents every second day.
Ktisophilos said...
killed 7 people and "Nearly all mainstream pro-life organizations reject violence"
It is irrelevat what the mainstream pro-life organizations do. People are worried about the small extreme Christian minority that resort to violence because of their Christian beliefs.
Ktisophilos said...
Therefore Melito's clear statements on the divinity of Christ place him squarely in the Trinitarian position
You keep on repeating the same false claim. Where does he say that the Holy Spirit is God or describe a trinity?
Welcome back Ktisophilos. You went quiet there for a while but your sharp responses indicate you are as healthy as ever.
Does anyone know what happened to Warwick? He has also gone quiet.
Neil
I'm reliably informed that he has taken up a well-paid job as a mercenary in Iraq. He has this enormous mortgage to repay and he, being a country lad at heart i.e. God, guns and guts, is putting his skills to good use.
Peter said: "Oh dear, yet another angry Christian. What is it about Christianity that makes them so angry and hostile inside, and nasty to other when they can get away with it?"
What? You mean in contradistinction to all those passive, calm, polite, pacificist, non-confrontational, honest, tax-paying, upright, reasonable, non-violent....atheists?
Peter seems unwilling to answer a similar question he asked of Neil.
That too is hypocritical.
sam drucker,
Why are you still trolling here?
You asked me 9/1/2009 a question. I answered and asked you two questions and again the following day I asked you to answer my original questions. So far you have not answered those questions.
sam drucker stated:
Peter seems unwilling to answer a similar question he asked of Neil. That too is hypocritical.
According to your own criteria your unwillingness to answer my questions makes you a hypocrite.
But actually you are illogical stating that someone is a hypocrite not answering a question. For example I do answer someone's questions if they also answer my questions, but I ignore people who don't want to answer my points. I guess according your "hypocrite" standard you need to always behave in a same way to everyone whether they are nice or not nice to you. I'm sad to say but you are not very logical.
Now once you study this and understand your error calling me a hypocrite regarding the abortion issue please try again to explain why according to my position I'm a hypocrite. So far you have failed in that.
Note that it is a common ad hominem attack fallacy to incorrectly call someone a hypocrite (your comments 10-12/1/2009). So to summarise: You are illogical, use ad hominem attacks and according to your own criteria you are a hypocrite.
So if you want a to have a productive chat with me please answer my 9/1/2009 questions first.
Ktisophilos said...
Therefore Melito's clear statements on the divinity of Christ place him squarely in the Trinitarian position
Peter the misotheistic ignoramus:
:You keep on repeating the same false claim. Where does he say that the Holy Spirit is God or describe a trinity?"
It wasn't an issue. The debates were around Christ, whether He was created or not. The Trinitarians argued that He was not, so Melito's sermon (after all on the Passover/Easter) puts him in that camp. Most of the heresies, including the later Arian one, claimed that Jesus was a created being.
No one is worried about the extremely rare instances of "pro-life terrorism", except that abortion-lovers deliberately exaggerate it to gain sympathy. Similarly for Christian suicide bombers: also virtually non-existent except where the church has badly compromised with the Islam of its culture. Evolutionized churches likewise compromised with eugenics, but that was the fault of evolution not the Christianity they betrayed.
Thanx for the warm welcome, Neil. It seems this site is attracting the sort of christophobic bigots who would never bother SAD, precisely because their compromise is no threat to their atheistic faith.
Peter wrote: But actually you are illogical stating that someone is a hypocrite not answering a question. For example I do answer someone's questions if they also answer my questions, but I ignore people who don't want to answer my points.
Note my comment: Peter seems unwilling to answer a similar question he asked of Neil.
In the absence of your stated criteria for not answering my question I was quite entitled to raise the spectre of hypocrisy because, as it appeared, you had one expectation of Neil (answer my question) and another expectation for yourself (I won't answer Sam's question) - double standard or lack of virtue.
Peter wrote: According to your own criteria your unwillingness to answer my questions makes you a hypocrite.
I had answered your question, the first part at least, from which you ought to have deduced my position. As to the second part I didn't think it warranted a reply but since you press I submit to you that you consider court decisions when someone confesses to deliberately killing human life (and the weight of evidence presented to the court points that way) and the person claims God told them to do it. If not found insane they are found guilty as charged. I am not aware anyone in such circumstance being found innocent. If this reply is not where you wanted to lead me then that is your problem, not mine.
As to you charging me with using ad hominem tactics - what about you also making a personal attack on me accusing me of trolling. That too is in the realm of hypocrisy. I am a long standing poster to this site. A review of the history of posts here will show my regular contribution. I have thus far chosen to keep my comments and questions to you brief because I detect you have a tendency to obfuscate when under pressure. I wouldn't like you to fall into that error so brevity is my means of keeping you out of trouble - not without some struggle!
Enough of your nonsense. Please answer my question on what would falsify speciation.
Ktisophilos said...
Peter the misotheistic ignoramus
Oh Dear, yet another angry name calling Christian. Why are so many Christians on this blog so angry?
Ktisophilos said...
The debates were around Christ, whether He was created or not. The Trinitarians argued that He was not, so Melito's sermon (after all on the Passover/Easter) puts him in that camp.
We were talking about the Trinity. Your "debates were around Christ" part of the answer is irrelevant and you presuppose that there were modern kind of Trinitarian without evidence. You presuppose your conclusions! So please provide the evidence to support your conclusion (Where does he say that the Holy Spirit is God or describe a trinity?).
Ktisophilos said...
No one is worried about the extremely rare instances of "pro-life terrorism", except that abortion-lovers deliberately exaggerate it to gain sympathy.
I previously showed that regarding this subject you don't know the facts and use fallacies to defend your position. You still keep on doing this. Had you bothered to do some fact checking you would have found out that people are worried about "pro-life terrorism". Abortion Clinics have bomb/bullet proof structures and armed security guards in the USA. Some abortion escort people wear bullet proof vests. You just keep on using the "argument from ignorance" fallacy. Do you actually care about the truth?
Still Illogically you try to claim that if you don't know the facts that means I am ignorant. Come on now, lift your game.
sam drucker said...
In the absence of your stated criteria for not answering my question I was quite entitled to raise the spectre of hypocrisy because...
In the absence of criteria don't assume but ask, or use the most charitable interpretation.
I don't want to assume what your position is, so would you please answer my original question "Do you think women performing an abortion should get a same punishment as a mother murdering her 8 year old child?"
Thanks for trying to answer the second one, but you just stated what the current court procedure is. But I would like to know what your opinion is regarding what punishment should be applied if the mother testifies that the God asked her to perform an abortion? Should we always exclude the possibility of the divine commandment?
sam drucker said...
As to you charging me with using ad hominem tactics - what about you also making a personal attack on me accusing me of trolling.
I was observing your behaviour. You called me a hypocrite without knowing my position on a issue. You did not want to answer my questions and kept on asking more questions. Then again you called me a hypocrite without knowing my position on an other issue while not answering my questions. That kind of behaviour on forums is usually considered trolling. So it was not a as hominem.
sam drucker said...
I have thus far chosen to keep my comments and questions to you brief because I detect you have a tendency to obfuscate when under pressure. I wouldn't like you to fall into that error so brevity is my means of keeping you out of trouble - not without some struggle!
Ok, thanks for taking it easy on me.
Re: speciation
The hypothesis is "speciation happens"
It is a positive claim so demonstrating a single occurrence of speciation proves that hypothesis is right.
claiming the negative side of the hypothesis is more difficult and you can not usually claim a certainty. The impossibility of proving the negative of "does god exist" is often sighted by apologists.
To summarise: It is like falsifying the existence of Japan.
If you want to discuss this more please specify exactly what your definition of "speciation" is.
Peter wrote> In the absence of criteria don't assume but ask, or use the most charitable interpretation.
I didn't assume anything. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. You weren't responding and I addressed it. There was nothing charitable in your failure to indicate your reason for not answering so why do you accuse me of lacking charity when you don't apply the same standard yourself?
Peter wrote: I don't want to assume what your position is, so would you please answer my original question "Do you think women performing an abortion should get a same punishment as a mother murdering her 8 year old child?"
You either have trouble deducing the obvious or more likely you want to lead me somewhere. For the sake of Christian charity I'll go with you.
Save for the limited number of life threatening situations which might warrant prevention of full term pregnancy (there are even variables in that scenario) I regard each situation you present as equally the taking of human life without just cause. As to the degree of punishment? I am neither law framer or judge. I have not considered it yet nor am I likely to on the spur of the moment.
Getting back to origin of the question, your glib pro-choice response on the issue of abortion places you in a state of hypocrisy since you had not long before been railing against God for permitting the taking of human life in child form yet you allow a person to take human life in the womb for any reason including convenience. By all appearance you don't regard humnan life with consistency.
Peter wrote: But I would like to know what your opinion is regarding what punishment should be applied if the mother testifies that the God asked her to perform an abortion? Should we always exclude the possibility of the divine commandment?
I see nothing in the new covenant from which one could rightly conclude that God has commanded someone to take human life in the womb.
Peter wrote: So it was not a as hominem.
It was ad hominem!
Peter wrote: If you want to discuss this more please specify exactly what your definition of "speciation" is.
I cannot allow you to pursue your usual tactic of throwing questions back when you haven't properly answered criticism or question.
You will get my position when the time comes. You raised speciation as evidence for evolution taking place but your answer so far is deficient so I need to draw you out a bit further.
I'll modify my question for your convenience. How does speciation demonstrate that dinosaurs became birds?
BTW, it's not a good look when you feign indignation and repeatedly accuse correspondents of being angry Christians simply because they take you to task in varying forms. I know them, they are not angry. Frustrated and short with nit-pickers and the inconsistent they may be but not angry Christians. I followed discussion before joining in. One thing that stood out to me was the seeming harsh way you communicated with Warwick. I don't think you are as unblemished as you make out. Just an observation.
I hope that the bigoted misotheist Peter takes his fellow misotheists to task for their derogatory comments about Christians, which would never dare to be said about Muslims.
It's crass to use an argument from silence about the Holy Spirit, when the key debates were about the Person of Christ. Once that was settle in the way Melito taught, the Trinity was a foregone conclusion. Binitarianism was never an issue; settling the Deity of Christ was enough to settle the Trinity.
The extremely rare "pro-life terrosism", which as I pointed out has claimed a mere handful of lives, is blown way out of proportion by assorted lefties, abortionists, misotheists and Islam-appeasers.
1. Peter said: “Can you please stop the nonsense claim that I advocate some kind of "world wide conspiracy", "Fathers were out and out liars" or "Alice-in-Wonderland situation" and address the issues. Thanks.”
My reply: But Peter, this is exactly what you’re advocating. You have been presenting a case that the original Christian theology was Adoptionist. Your proof rests solely on one verse from the Bible. There is no early MS that evinces this, only the Bezae which is approximately 500 years after the NT was written. This same verse is repeated in a few patristic quotes. On the other hand, you are also saying that all the other MSS which have a different version of this verse are not original and that the Trinitarians managed to somehow or other alter the text and then pass this off as the true verse. Somehow or other, this one [Adoptionist] verse has managed to elude the Trinitarians’ gaze. You give no explanation how this con was carried out but throw enough suspicion that weaker minds may find alluring and actually believe your empty tale.
Peter, rather than take some moral high-ground by taking offence at my suggestion that that is in fact what your position really is i.e. that you’re advocating a conspiracy, defend your position and show us how it isn’t a conspiracy. I believe that your taking umbrage is a red-herring in order to escape actually defending you position that there was a “cover-up”. After all, aren’t you saying that all the world’s Bibles have followed a lie and now contain a verse which was not originally representative of genuine Christianity and which falsely has held up Trinitarianism as the true theology?
2. John said...
Peter admits that there is not one single supporting document for the truth of this Adoptionist position, yet Peter wishes us to believe that this complete absence of evidence is not evidence for its absence but is proof solely because of Psalm 2.
Peter responded: “You are misrepresenting my position. As you can see above you asked me about NT manuscripts, not all manuscripts. (there are actually old Latin manuscripts but lets ignore those) We have plenty of Church father quotes about the Gospel text, so we know what their version Gospels said. No conspiracy theory need when we have the evidence. You offer me manuscripts from 4th- 15th Century. I showed how that passage was present from the 2nd - 6th Century. (Clement ~used that saying also in the 1st Century) Even Origen in 3rd century wrote: "None of these testimonies, however, sets forth distinctly the Saviour’s exalted birth; but when the words are addressed to Him, “Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee,” this is spoken to Him by God, ... The day is to-day with Him in which the Son was begotten." -Commentary on the Gospel of John (Remember he was "the only begotten Son")
I offered you much earlier documents but you are still arguing about this. Please offer me pre-Nicean evidence as I wrote before.”
I reply: I was asking for some documentation that the Adoptionist position was actually an issue and the true Christian position in the 1st and 2nd centuries. Peter, what you gave was a Bible verse which to YOUR mind expresses an Adoptionist position, which of course begs the question that it is evincing an Adoptionist position. There are a number of non-Adoptionist ways of understanding it. Origen, himself, goes on to give just a one.
“None of these testimonies, however, sets forth distinctly the Saviour's exalted birth; but when the words are addressed to Him, "Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee," this is spoken to Him by God, with whom all time is to-day, for there is no evening with God, as I consider, and there is no morning, nothing but time that stretches out, along with His unbeginning and unseen life. The day is to-day with Him in which the Son was begotten, and thus the beginning of His birth is not found, as neither is the day of it.”
The question as to whether Luke’s D verse is the oldest is not the equivalent of proving that this same verse unambiguously demonstrates that the Gospel writer had intended an adoptionist position. Whatever Origen’s faults are, Adoptionism is not one of them as it’s quite clear that Origen was arguing that Christ was eternally God’s Son.
Regarding Clement of Rome, the only passage I’m aware of is his quoting Psalm 2, not as a part of Luke but directly from the Old Testament, is in the following:
“This is the way, beloved, in which we find our Saviour, even Jesus Christ, the High Priest of all our offerings, the defender and helper of our infirmity. By Him we look up to the heights of heaven. By Him we behold, as in a glass, His immaculate and most excellent visage. By Him are the eyes of our hearts opened. By Him our foolish and darkened understanding blossoms up anew towards His marvellous light. By Him the Lord has willed that we should taste of immortal knowledge, "who, being the brightness of His majesty, is by so much greater than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they." For it is thus written, "Who makes His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire." But concerning His Son the Lord spoke thus: "You are my Son, today have I begotten You. Ask of Me, and I will give You the heathen for Your inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Your possession." And again He says to Him, "Sit at My right hand, until I make Your enemies Your footstool." But who are His enemies? All the wicked, and those who set themselves to oppose the will of God.” (Epistle to the Corinthians, Ch 36)
No hint of Bezae or adoptionism there.
BTW Peter, what do you think the word ‘begotten’ means?
2. What YOU have to do is to supply commentators who interpreted this ONE verse as demonstrating the Adoptionist theology. Thus far you have merely repeated, over and over again, Luke’s verse from ONE MS.
The clear, overwhelming evidence is that the Adoptionist position did not even rate. We find little mention of it and certainly the very patristic blokes you lean on for support didn’t support it. This is easily seen from their writings. Note the following that impute an eternal existence to Jesus, as well His being God:
(i) Ignatius who tradition states was a disciple of Peter, Paul and John, wrote,
a. “Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before all ages and appeared at the end of time…Be not deceived by strange doctrines nor by ancient fables….Jesus Christ, who came forth from the one Father, was always with the Father, and has returned to the one Father…For the divine prophets lived a life in accordance with Christ Jesus. For this cause too they were persecuted, being inspired by His grace, so that unbelievers might be fully convinced that there is One God, who manifested Himself through Jesus Christ His Son, who is His Word, coming forth from silence, who in all things did the good pleasure of Him that sent Him….that you may be prospered in all that you do in flesh and spirit, in faith and love, in the Son and Father and Spirit” (Epistle to the Magnesians, vi-viii,xiii)
b. “There is one Physician, of flesh and of Spirit, originate and unoriginated, God in man, true life in death, son of Mary and Son of God, first passible and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord….For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived in the womb by Mary according to a dispensation, of the seed of David but also of the Holy Ghost; and he was born and baptised…From that time onward all magic was abolished and every spell; the ignorance of wickedness vanished, the ancient kingdom was destroyed; for God was displayed in human form to being ‘newness of eternal life’.”.” (Epistle to the Ephesians, xviii-xix)
(ii) Aristides, writing late 1st or early 2nd century, stated, “Now the Christians trace their origin from the Lord Jesus Christ. And He is acknowledged by the Holy Spirit to be the Son of the Most High God, who came down from heaven for the salvation of men. And being born of a pure virgin, unbegotten and immaculate, He assumed flesh and revealed Himself among men that He might recall them to Himself from their wandering after many gods…For [Christians] know God, the Creator and Fashioner of all things through the only-begotten Son and the Holy Spirit; and besides Him they worship no other God.” (The History of Barlaam and Josaphat)
(iii) Mathetes (possibly early 2nd century), who claimed, “having been a disciple of the apostles,” speaks clearly of the eternality of the Word, not as the Father, but as being sent from the Father:
a. “For which reason He [the Father] sent the Word, that He might be manifested to the world. . . . This is He who was from the beginning, who appeared as if new, and was found old, and yet who is ever born afresh in the hearts of the saints. This is He who, being from everlasting, is today called the Son.” (Letter to Diognetus, 11.)
b. “But God Himself in very truth, the almighty and all-creating and invisible God, Himself from heaven planted among men and established within their hearts the Truth and Word, the holy, incomprehensible Word, sending to men not a servant, as one might imagine, or an angel or ruler, or one of those who administer earthly things, or of those who have been entrusted with the ordering of things in heaven, but the very Artificer and Creator of the universe Himself, by whom He made the heavens, by whom He enclosed the sea within bounds of its own, whose mysteries all the elements faithfully observe, [etc etc]…Did He send Him, as a man might think, on a mission of domination and fear and terror? Indeed He did not, but in gentleness and meekness He sent Him, as a king sending his own son who is himself a king; He sent Him as God, He sent Him as man to men, He sent Him with the idea of saving, of persuading, not of forcing; for force is no part of the nature of God. He sent Him as inviting, not as pursuing man; He sent Him in love, not in judgement.” (From the Epistle to Diognetus)
.
(iv) From Justin, “but also among the barbaric nations the very Word Himself, who took a form, and became man, and was called Jesus Christ….And the truth is that Jesus Christ alone has been begotten as the unique Son of God, being already his Word, his First-begotten, and his Power. By the will of God he became man, and gave us this teaching for the conversion and restoration of mankind…For we do not receive them as ordinary food, or ordinary drink; but as by the Word of God Jesus our Saviour was made flesh….Whatever all men have uttered aright, then, belongs to us Christians; for we worship and love, next to God, the Word which is from the Unbegotten and Ineffable God: for it was even for us that He was made man, that He might be a partaker of our very sufferings and bring is healing.” (Apology, I. v., xxiii, lxvi; II. xiii)
(v) From Clement, “All these the great Creator and Lord of all has appointed to exist in peace and harmony; while He does good to all, but most abundantly to us who have fled for refuge to His compassions through Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom be glory and majesty for ever and ever. Amen.” (Ch 20), “Let us consider, beloved, how the Lord continually proves to us that there shall be a future resurrection, of which He has rendered the Lord Jesus Christ the first-fruits by raising Him from the dead.” (ch 24) and “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you, and with all everywhere that are the called of God through Him, by whom be to Him glory, honour, power, majesty, and eternal dominion, from everlasting to everlasting. Amen.” (ch 59) (Epistle to the Corinthians”
(vi) And the one mention I could find of an Adoptionist type Christology is found in Irenaeus: “And a certain Cerinthus, too, in Asia, taught…that Jesus was not born of a virgin but was the son of Joseph and Mary, like all men, and had more power than men in justice, prudence and wisdom. And that after his Baptism there descended on him from that Royalty which is above all, Christ in the figure of a Dove, and that he then declared the unknown Father, and did mighty works…But those who are called Ebionites agree, indeed, that the world was made by God, but in the opinions which relate to the Lord they do not hold with Cerinthus and Carpocrates….Again the Ebionites, too, are vain, not receiving by faith into their soul the union of God and Man, but abide in the old leaven of their [natural] generation; and will not understand that “the Holy Ghost” came “upon” Mary, and “the power of the Highest overshadowed” her “wherefore also that which is born” is holy, even the Son of the Most High God, the Father of all, Who wrought His Incarnation” (Adv Haereses, I. xxvi & V.i)
(vii) Again from Irenaeus, “The name of God or Lord is given only to him who is God and Lord of all; who said to Moses ‘My name is I AM. And you shall say to the Israelites, ‘HE WHO IS has sent me to you.’ The name of God and Lord is given also to his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who makes men the sons of God if they believe in his name. And the Son says to Moses, ‘I have come down to rescue this people.’…‘Christ’, says Paul, ‘is the end of the Law, to obtain justification for every believer.’ How could Christ be the end of the Law unless he were also its beginning? For he who brought the end wrought the beginning also. It is he who says to Moses, ‘I have surely seen the affliction of my people in Egypt, and I have come down to rescue them.’ From the beginning he was accustomed, as the Word of God, to descend and ascend for the salvation of those who were in distress….[M]an, who is contingent and created, grows into the image and likeness of the eternal God. This process the Father approves and commands; the Son carries out the Father’s plans, the Spirit supports and hastens the process; while man gradually advances and mounts towards perfection; that is, he approaches the eternal. The eternal is perfect; and this is God.” (Adv Haereses, III. vi & IV. xii, xxxviii)
(viii) From Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians: “Happy is he who remembers, as I believe you do. But God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Eternal High Priest Himself, Jesus Christ the Son of God, edify you in faith and truth and in all gentleness and meekness.”
4. John said...
“The documented evidence (see any earlier post) is that they all expressed a Trinitarian view.”
Peter said: “Just tell us now who was the first Christians who stated that the Holy Spirit is God or described a trinity? You haven't told us that yet even when I have asked that before. And tell us where Justin wrote about it as you claimed.”
I respond: Jesus was the first. He claimed that He was God. For example, in John 8 Jesus states that Abraham “rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” He then claims states that “Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham, I AM.” [This verse also negates any claim the Adoptionist camp has!] Then the Jews tried to stone him. For what? Because he clearly claimed he was God almighty, the same ‘I AM’ in Exodus 3.
This Gospel also has Thomas calling Jesus God. In John 20 Thomas calls Jesus “The Lord of me and the God of me.”
Jesus clearly claimed the Holy Spirit was a Person. For example in John 16:13 we have the only Greek grammar error in the New Testament. Jesus, speaking in Hebrew, calls the Spirit ‘He’. In order to accurately record Jesus’ point here, John, who was there, had to manufacture a grammar error in the Greek. Spirit, in Greek, is neuter, but John uses the masculine pronoun ‘he’ to quote Jesus when he said, ‘He, the Spirit of truth’. To be absolutely accurate, John should have used ‘it’ in the Greek not ‘he’, but then if he had been grammatically correct he wouldn’t have accurately relayed Jesus’ theological statement about the Spirit being a Person.
Jesus also says he will send God’s Spirit from the Father who “comes out of” the Father. What comes out of God can’t be not God; He has to be God. And in this Jesus claims deity. Who else could send God’s Spirit but God.
The following early Christian quotes declared the Holy Spirit God:
(i) From the Didache (c. 100 AD): “And concerning baptism, baptise ye thus. Having first declared all these things, baptise in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost…pour water thrice upon the head in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.”
(ii) From Hermas (early 2nd century), “Thou seest, quoth he, that He is the Lord of the people, having received all authority from His Father. Hear also how the Lord took counsel with His Son and the holy angels about the inheritance of the slave. The pre-existent Holy Spirit, which created the whole creation, did God make to dwell in flesh which He chose.” (The Shepherd)
(iii) From Irenaeus, “[Man] was fashioned in the likeness of God and was formed by the hands of God, that is, by the Son and the Spirit, to whom he said, ‘Let us make man.’” (Adv Hereses IV. Praef. 3)
But arguably the most revealing proof is contained in the MSS. In several places the Nomina Sacra (i.e. the equivalent of the Old Testament’s Tetragrammaton) is used, and this in very early MSS. For example,
(i) In p75 (possibly as early as mid 2nd century) at Luke 11:13 it is written, “ο πρ εξ ουρανου δωσει πνα αγιον” i.e. “The Heavenly Father will give the Holy Spirit.” Both the Father and the Spirit are written using the Nomina Sacra.
(ii) In p4, p64, p67 (mid 2nd century, though some e.g. Thiede, date p4 and p64 to the late 1st century) at Luke 3:22 we read, “και καταβηναι το πνα το αγιον πνι ειδει ως περιστερα επ αυτον και φωνην εξ ουρανου γενεσθαι συ ει ο υιος μου ο αγαπητος εν σοι ευδοκησα” i.e. ‘And the Holy Spirit came down in a form of a dove upon Him and a voice out of heaven came, “You are my beloved son in whom I am well-pleased.”’ (BTW, where’s Psalm 2 here?)
(iii) In p66 (early to mid 2nd century) we note, “ο δε παρακλητος το πνα το αγιον” i.e. “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit.”
5. John said..."Without invoking undocumented battles...and "Arianism was much like Adoptionism"
Peter replied: “You seem to contract yourself. Surely you have also heard about Marcionism, Nestorianism, Docetism, etc all well documented.”
I am not quite sure what you mean. My point was that there seems to be no Adoptionist battle like there was for other heresies. I can’t find anything from the early Church.
6. With regard to the Gabriel tablet, I said: “The dust has hardly settled from the discovery of the tablet which contains the so-called Gabriel’s Revelation. There is no actual historical figure on the tablet and is almost poetic, with many, many illegible words. Can you provide me the exact evidence where an historical Jew called Simon is actually called the Messiah at the time of his existence?
Peter responded by saying: “From Israel Knohl speech abstract:
"The second part of the Gabriel Revelation focuses on death and resurrection – and the blood of the slain. The last paragraph cites the words of the Archangel Gabriel who commands a person to return to life after three days: “By three days, live.”
In my lecture I will deal with the possible connection between the figure of Ephraim, the Messiah Son of Joseph, and the image of Jesus in the New Testament. I will also explore the possible link between the resurrection “by three days” commanded by Gabriel in the Gabriel Revelation and the resurrection of Jesus “on the third day.”"
I reply: An article by Knohl ('In three days, you shall live') which appeared in Haaretz.com, April 19th 2007, to me at least, makes me conclude that Peter rather overstates Knohl’s case. It is tenuous at best, makes some fairly large (?and tendentious) jumps concerning missing words (including the 3 days!) and still does not provide the hard evidence that Simon was paraded as a messianic figure. His best, and only, effort is based on this: “Was the prince of princes a historical figure? I believe he was. The key to identifying him lies in the phrase "arubot tzurim," which comes after the reference to the prince of princes. In the Bible and Talmud, the word "aruba" means a narrow opening or slit. "Tzurim" are rocks (the word appears here in an unvocalized form, without the letter vav). "Arubot tzurim" would thus be a crevice. The death of the prince of princes is somehow associated with a rocky crevice.
The Gabriel Revelation, as we have said, has been dated, on the basis of linguistics and orthography, to the end of the first century BCE. The circumstances surrounding the discovery of the inscription are unknown. All we are told by the editors is that it may have been discovered in Transjordan. This leads us to Transjordan in the late first century BCE. Do we know of any Jewish leader or king who was killed here in antiquity and whose death has some sort of connection to a rocky gorge?
The revolt in 4 BCE was a bid for freedom. The rebels sought to throw off the yoke of the Herodian monarchy, which enjoyed the support of the Romans. The insurrection, which began in Jerusalem and spread throughout the country, had several leaders. A study of both Jewish and Roman sources shows that the most prominent of them was Simon, who operated from Transjordan….This is how the first century Jewish historian Josephus describes Simon's death in battle: "Simon himself, endeavoring to escape up a steep ravine, was intercepted by Gratus [a commander in Herod's army], who struck the fugitive from the side with a blow on the neck, which severed his head from his body." With its reference to a rocky crevice and the prince of princes, the text seems to be alluding to the death of Simon, the rebel leader who was crowned king, in a narrow gorge in Transjordan.”
In any case, as Knohl points out “[t]he primary biblical source for the Gabriel Revelation is the narrative in the Book of Daniel (8:15-26), in which the Archangel Gabriel reveals himself to Daniel for the first time. Gabriel describes a "king of fierce countenance." This king "shall destroy them that are mighty and the people of the saints... he shall also stand
up against the prince of princes" (Daniel 8:24-25).
7. Peter comments: “Many Christians believe in Jesus miracles while rejecting miracles of Mithras/Vespasian/Heracles/etc. In a same way you reject miracles of other Gods/religion I reject Jesus' miracles. What is your bases of rejecting Mithras' miracles?”
I respond: Because we have good argument to reject them. The “MS” “evidence” (something you’ve yet to supply) for any of these so-called “miracles” of these other “gods” are extraordinary late (i.e. sometimes several thousand years after they lived), have no historical basis behind them, the miracles serve no purpose, are odd (no healings etc), aren’t integral to the story or these “gods” lives, and they were deified much later. On the other hand, Christ declared himself God at the time. Furthermore, there is a continuity between then and now, as evidenced by the Church, its apostles (we know their names etc), and the MSS. Anyway, neither Mithras etc resurrected physically by appearing to many people (a little research will demonstrate this to you e.g. read Gunter’s book about Baptism). Take the resurrection away from Christianity and it’s the most stupid of all religions. Take all the “miracles” from these “gods” and they’re still “gods”.
BTW, Peter, you’re going to have to stop throwing in these unsupported assertions as though they’re fact. Prove to us that Mithras etc claimed to do miracles.
8. John said...
“As for Sai Baba, I’ve seen the tricks...No one saw him raise people from the dead or cure leprosy.”
Peter responded: “The point was that tricks work! Modern and ancient miracle men performed tricks. The question is why to you believe one of them was real while rejecting others. Sai Baba's followers can testify that he raised people from the dead, why are you so skeptical with all the credible eye witness stories. Those eye witnesses are surely not lying or are they tricked...”
My reply: Let’s be honest here, Peter – honest with us, but more importantly, honest with yourself. Your argument is really this: I have an a priori commitment to materialism. That is, there is no possibility of miracles. The reason? Because materialism says it’s impossible. So, despite the clear difference of style in the Gospels (written in historical narrative) in contrast to other putative miracle accounts e.g. Gitas (written in a non-historical, more saga, style), I can’t believe miracles actually occurred.
So, Peter, there is nothing anyone can say that would persuade you otherwise because you have this a priori commitment i.e. your mind WAS ALREADY made up.
Peter, in 1992 I spend many months in India for the sole purpose of investigating these claims of Sai Baba and many other gurus. I had read accounts of these “miracles” for several years prior to my going there, and I continue to investigate such. What is so clearly communicated in all these conversations I had with the “risen from the dead” etc people, was that NOTHING really had occurred. You really have to know something about India to understand what I mean by this. The writings, the supposed accounts of these events by these gurus’ touts, are never historical. And I mean, NEVER. By trying to equate the Gospel accounts of the miraculous with these only betrays the thin and fragile grasp you have of historical narrative as a genre, not to mention, once again, your religious conviction of philosophical materialism. What more can I say?
9. Peter asked: “You scared off Sai Baba's followers? I don't understand your point, sorry.”
My response: It was an entertaining story. But also it illustrated how easy it was to prove that Sai Baba couldn’t do even an easy miracle – easy for a “god” – like giving a leper a new body. Jesus, because he is God, did it on several occasions when asked. I’ve already told you the tricks Baba does. He is supposed to be God but can’t do much better than a bit of ash sprinkled from his palm and a gold watch or two.
10. Peter stated: “Many first generation Mormons were ready to die for Joseph Smith, first generation Muslims died for Mohammed and several Priests of Mithras died as martyrs in the hands of Christians. Would they have died for a lie? Did first generation followers of Jim Jones, David Koresh or Solar Temle cult (1994) died for a lie? So many first generation followers of many religions have died willingly, what is so special about Christianity?”
I reply: You must provide some evidence for this claim about the Mormons. No Mormon said Smith was God. They died, as far as I’m aware, because they believed he was a prophet. And in any case, many of them died because the locals thought they were a threat to their immediate local communities and to the US as a whole.
Muhammad’s followers died because Islam wants to violently take over the world. Fullstop.
Mithraic priests? Who? Come again?
Jim Jones? Kool Aid doesn’t ring a bell?
David Koresh…hmmm. Why don’t you tell us what happened here.
Ditto Solar Temple Cult.
The point is that many of the early Christians had an opportunity to recant. I believe some of the followers of the blokes you threw up never did. You can read how in Smyrna in AD 156 Polycarp was asked to recant and live. His reply was, “Eighty and six years have I served Him, and he hath done me no wrong. How can I speak evil of my King who saved me?” For more detail see Martyrium Polycarpi (February 22, 156)
Regarding the type of miracles that Christ performed set against the pagan claims to the same, Arnobius’ words set out the difference: “Works of magic, were they? Did ever a magician do a thousandth part of these? Contrast the wicked works that are laboriously done by incantations, and tell us. Was he one of us, who spoke, and it was done? Was he one of us, whose works were all divine in goodness? Was he one of us, whose mere word or touch cured every form of sickness? Who made the lame to walk, the blind to see? Who calmed the winds, and trod the stormy waves? Was he one of us, who read the hearts of men? Was he one of us, who raised the dead, and rose from the grave himself? Was he one of us, whose word was never vain, whose power still remains with them that love him to do such works as his? Scoff as you will, and split with laughter if you please, the truth is clear as sunlight. There was neither magic nor fraud in Christ. He is in essence God, sent from realms unknown as God and Saviour by the Lord of all.” (Adv. Gentes, i. 43-53)
11. Peter asked: “Can you please quote the stories and sources how deciples were martyred, so we can check the credibility of your claims?”
For some legal requirements in Christian trials see Pliny to Trajan in Pliny, Epp. X. xcvi and xcvii.
12. Peter said: “Muslims don't seem to agree with you or "Christianity Answers Islam" otherwise they would leave their religion. Do you think they are blinded by their religion?”
I respond: That’s your argument?
Peter, Muslims do leave Islam. Some are killed for this, and some escape. In any case, you’re not responding to my point but lamely responding to your own question. I suggest you learn a little Arabic and find out what I’m talking about and leave the knee-jerk, superficial answers of this site.
BTW, ‘agreement’ is not a criterion for truth. That someone doesn’t move from their position doesn’t negate the force or truth of what evidence they’ve just ignored. For example, I can’t remember who it was on this site, but he brought up an argument against your stochastic chemical argument. It is a fact that one can’t find one example of complex proteins being formed unassisted in nature outside of a life. You still believe it can happen, and the blogger here explained to you the unscientific case you have and thus exposing your religious faith. So is agreement/non-agreement relevant here or is it to do with scientific facts? Similarly, are there grammar errors in the Koran or not? Only objective rules can determine that, not if a Muslim subjectively disagrees with your assertion.
13. John said 28 December, 2008 ...
"the disciple John, who was an actual witness to these events"
Peter responded: “So you believe John, because he met (is?) somebody who testified it is true and we know that because he said so? So how do we know it is true, because he said it is true? (not circular??) I have a cheap bridge in Booklyn to sell if you take my friends testimony on that and it is true because he said so.”
I respond: It’s a straw man, mate, a straw man.
14. Peter said: “In a court of law the Judge does not only take a word of a single person, he takes in everyone's testimony. Mark, Luke, Matthew and John disagree what happen during the passover. A judge would not believe them...”
I respond: Once again, assertion.
15. John said...
Tell me some other religious figures who take an oath that what they saw actually happened
Peter replied: “Pretty much every cult leader can take an oath that their claim is true.
I reply: You are the master of assertion. Proof?
16. Peter said: “What is so special about an oath. Every Christian takes an oath in the court of law (should they do that?) yet we don't automatically believe their testimony either.”
I reply: I guess if you’re comfortable about telling lies– you do tell lies don’t you, Peter? – then I guess you’re not going to believe most people you come in contact with and you’ll believe most people are as least as dishonest as you are.
And if oaths don’t mean much to you, there is certainly no reason for us to take you seriously because you could be lying or playing games and it wouldn’t mean much, no matter how much you feign indignation or truthfulness.
17. Early on Peter, without sourcing the rule, offered the following as a guide: “The more difficult reading is probably the original one.”
I believe the quote comes from ‘Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism’, by Epp and Fee (pp.14-15). However, (and forgive me if I charge you in error) Peter leaves out a few important sections. Fee has added the qualifying adverb ‘usually’, as in “It is usually true that the more difficult reading…” Fee also immediately tacks on the following: “Again, the shorter reading is often the original one, because scribes tended to add to the text. This criterion must, however, be used with great caution because scribes sometimes made omissions in the text either for smoothness or to remove what might be objectionable.” But Fee’s argument turns back on itself and states, “Not all the criteria mentioned above are equally applicable in very case; in fact, in some instances they oppose one another. For example, the longer reading may be the more difficult one.”
Peter, you’re welcome to make sense of all this and then tell us how it can be reapplied to your argument about Bezae…if you wish.
18. At the risk of repeating myself,
I made the following point and I believe Peter didn’t actually address it: If Psalm 2 is such strong evidence for an Adoptionist view, and the Adoptionists – assuming that they existed and were important - pointed to this as evidence, why on earth would Justin include it, given that he isn’t an Adoptionist (the evidence is clear on this)?
So, would you answer this, Peter.
I also stated this: BTW, in the same chapter [i.e. 88], Justin writes that “even at his birth Jesus was in possession of his power”, thus effectively killing off any argument that Justin was an Adoptionist. Furthermore, he writes a little later that, Jesus had no need for the baptism but because of the human race and that he “submitted to be born.” These are views the Adoptionist view would not permit.
REgarding Homer, there is a whole chapter in Jean Danielou's 'Gospel Message and Hellenistic Culture: A History of Early Christian Doctrine Before the Council of Nicea, vol 2' on this. The chapter's title is "Homer in the Fathers of the Church". The basis of their address is that Homer was an extremely imnportant cultural element in the 2nd century AD. One quote is pertinent:
"The aspect which is relevant to our general subject, namely the way in which the Christian revelation was expressed, in a Hellenistic environment, is that the correspondences established between certain Homeric myths, or certain allegories based on his poems, and the stories and symbols of the Bible allowed the Fathers of the Church to use Homeric forms in order to communicate the Christian revelation, disengaging it from the Semitic categories in which it had been first expressed, and translating it into those of the Hellenistic world."
Even if there were a "similarity" between Mark's Gospel and Homer, it isn't necessary the case that Mark stole from the latter.
sam drucker said first...
In the absence of your stated criteria for not answering my question I was quite entitled to raise the spectre of hypocrisy
and then
I didn't assume anything. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.
Hmmm...
sam drucker said first...
Save for the limited number of life threatening situations which might warrant prevention of full term pregnancy (there are even variables in that scenario) I regard each situation you present as equally the taking of human life without just cause.
So after all you are an abortionist even when you consider them hypocritical. You also seem to be relativist and use situational ethics. Is that even Biblical?
sam drucker said first...
each situation you present as equally the taking of human life without just cause... I have not considered it yet nor am I likely to on the spur of the moment.
As you have not really thought through the subject may I recommend some homework before you start name calling, judging others or presenting your opinion. You don't seem to regard unborn same as a born human. Can you put a percentage value on unborn versus born human?
sam drucker said first...
your glib pro-choice response on the issue of abortion places you in a state of hypocrisy since you had not long before been railing against God for permitting the taking of human life in child form yet you allow a person to take human life in the womb for any reason including convenience.
"The God of love" is all powerful, omnipotent and has ethics system I don't understand, so why are you comparing His views to mine? I can be against a slavery based on many ethics system, but God is(/was?) not against slavery for example
sam drucker said first...
I see nothing in the new covenant from which one could rightly conclude that God has commanded someone to take human life in the womb.
Absence of evidence argument. How do you know God's mind, maybe He had a good reason for his action. He seems to talk to many people all the time.
sam drucker said first...
I cannot allow you to pursue your usual tactic of throwing questions back when you haven't properly answered criticism or question. You will get my position when the time comes.
I'll modify my question for your convenience. How does speciation demonstrate that dinosaurs became birds?
I just wanted to define terms so we talk about same thing. Some creationists us animal "kind" and vague definitions of species...
Speciation does not demonstrate that dinosaurs became birds (maybe you meant the other way around?). There must have been numerous species from dinos to birds over millions of years. I might not have understood your question...
BTW, Thanks for telling me that calling Christians are not angry.
Peter wrote: Hmmm...
?
Peter wrote: So after all you are an abortionist even when you consider them hypocritical. You also seem to be relativist and use situational ethics. Is that even Biblical?
Pathetic attempt to twist the issue. Leave aside your false imputation, the issue was not about me. The issue was your hypocrisy in railing in judgement against God when all the while you endorse the taking of human life at whim or choice. You, my boy, are a hypocrite.
As to mitigation of circumstances and whether Biblical? Yes, check out certain laws in Exodus and Leviticus. I'll leave it to you to do the homework.
Peter wrote: As you have not really thought through the subject may I recommend some homework before you start name calling, judging others or presenting your opinion. You don't seem to regard unborn same as a born human. Can you put a percentage value on unborn versus born human?
Puerile!
Peter wrote: "The God of love" is all powerful, omnipotent and has ethics system I don't understand, so why are you comparing His views to mine? I can be against a slavery based on many ethics system, but God is(/was?) not against slavery for example
You took it upon yourself to act hypocritically. That's the nub of it.
Peter wrote: Absence of evidence argument. How do you know God's mind, maybe He had a good reason for his action. He seems to talk to many people all the time.
Nit picking! Arguing for argument's sake. A common flaw in Atheists' tactics from my experience - especially the inexperienced ones. Try Matt. 22:39
Peter wrote: I just wanted to define terms so we talk about same thing. Some creationists us animal "kind" and vague definitions of species...
Speciation does not demonstrate that dinosaurs became birds (maybe you meant the other way around?). There must have been numerous species from dinos to birds over millions of years. I might not have understood your question...
Obfuscation again. You raised the subject of speciation demonstrating evolution and I am trying to get you to make your case with, I must say, great difficulty.
Didn't you say that speciation demonstrates evolution? Perhaps then you wish to withdraw your original assertion?
Peter wrote: BTW, Thanks for telling me that calling Christians are not angry.
Unintelligible use of language therefore not information.
John (and others),
You have clearly put some time and effort to research your answers, but at the same this discussion has drifted from the original subject to Trinitarianims, Adoptionism, Messianic claims, Manuscript history, Sai Baba, Abortion... Your casual readers might not go this deep in to the comments, so may I recommend that you make individual blog posts of those subjects to catch wider audience and to get fresh comments. This will also keep the discussion focused and blog nicely rolling.
Often Blogs convert comments to post by writing:
"XXXX incorrectly claimed in comments that Trinitarianism is....
Actully Christian view is..."
You already have the text, all you need is a catchy header.
If you convert some of your comments to post(s), I'll comment on those there. Otherwise I'll post my comments here in a day or two.
Peter,
I'm about to fly out of the country. I somehow don't think I'll get around to it...so I'll have to wait your post here.
John,
1. I am not advocating a "con". I claimed that in 150 AD Justin Martyr and many others just quoted the Bible, not made it up. You seem to both quote and dismiss early Church father at the same time. Why do you think they quote Luke not preserved in modern Bibles. I already pointed out that Justin Martyr advocated subordinationism so Justin's "Jesus the lesser God" kills your Trinity argument.
2. John said:
Peter admits that there is not one single supporting document for the truth of this Adoptionist position
A Strawman. Why did early chuch fathers quote Luke like they did. Who do you think change Luke and why?
4. Sorry, I don't see Trinity in Jesus mouth. Note that early Church fathers were not aware of John's Gospel. Clement or Ignatius never quotes him or any other Gospels..
Didache is interesting reading. If you go two chapter further what you quoted it says "let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but such as have been baptized into the name of the Lord" (kyrios). Clearly a different and earlier tradition as that chapter tells us the original meaning of the Eucharist, not the modern different meaning...
You date all you manuscript 50-100 earlier that main stream scholars. You mentioned Thiede who is famous for dating non existing Mark (DSS) against all scholarly opinion. Are you sure your sources are correctly dated? All your sources seem to be written after Justin Martyr.
6. John said:
Raymond Brown, in his ‘An Introduction to New Testament Christology’ (p. 73), makes the point that “in all Jewish history before A.D. 130…we have no evidence that any living Jew was ever referred to as the Messiah except Jesus of Nazareth.” If Peter can supply evidence to the contrary he may have a point.
Do you now concede the point that Jesus was not the first to claim to be a Messiah and that Jews did not mind that much is someone claimed to be a Messiah?
7. Jesus was not the first nor last to be physically resurrected and it was common Jewish thought that after death God will give back our physical parts and appearance. It seem to be a special pleading that Jesus had the right type of miracles with right kind of purpose. Mithras performed for example water miracle, but I'm not sure what kind of proof is acceptable. Level of proof is similar to Christian claims. Who do you prove Jesus' miracles anyway?
8. John said:
Your argument is really this: I have an a priori commitment to materialism... your mind WAS ALREADY made up.
You just keep on using strawmen in your arguments.
You should investigate modern Christian miracle claims in a same fashion as you investigated Sai Baba case and share us your experiences. BTW I was in India when Ganesha milk miracle happened in 1995 and I got many eye witness accounts of the miracles which make religious Hindus more convince of their faith.
13. I disagree. The argument is circular. Why do you believe John was an eye witness who is telling the truth?
14. I disagree. What were Jesus last words according to your Bible?
16. I don' get your point. When modern Christians (even Churches) do business they don't trust each others' words. They write a contract. Bible says not to make an oath, so what is special about it. Do you take an oath every day or can we trust you without it?
17.John said:
I believe the quote comes from ‘Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism’, by Epp and Fee (pp.14-15). However, (and forgive me if I charge you in error) Peter leaves out a few important sections. Fee has added the qualifying adverb ‘usually’, as in “It is usually true that the more difficult reading…”
I said earlier:
“The more difficult reading is probably the original one.”
Come on now. I used the word "probably" you quoted "usually". And people accuse me of nit picking.
And I have not read Epp and Fee, I read another book about the textual criticism...
18. I already answered this. Justin quoted that because it was in his version of Luke. I also commented more about this in my earlier post.
Re Homer: I did not claim Mark "stole", he just used the standard model to tell a story. And I already pointed out how Luke copied scene and text (Acts 26:14 ASV) from pre-existing greek plays.
If you have a long comment again please make it as a blog post...
sam drucker,
Abortion is ok never, sometimes or always. Both you and me claim it is sometimes ok. We both are abortionist. You claim that in some cases abortion is ok. Who gave you the right to kill and not to trust God in those circumstances?
sam drucker said...
As to mitigation of circumstances and whether Biblical? Yes, check out certain laws in Exodus and Leviticus.
Let me guess. You pick and choose your Leviticus laws. A prime example of relativism. Who do you choose which part of the word of God you reject?
sam drucker said...
Puerile!
You seem to keep on dodging tough questions...
sam drucker said...
Try Matt. 22:39
Sure, be nice to your neighbour, but you can take slaves from the neighbouring tribes or sell them road kill. You should study what you quote.
Peter wrote earlier: Absence of evidence argument.....
sam drucker said...
Nit picking!
I guess evidence has not much weight here...
Please post a new blog post about evolution/speciation/evidence and let's tackle this there.
BTW, I meant to say "Thanks for telling me that name calling Christians are not angry."
Peter wrote: We both are abortionist.
Once again I stress the issue is not about me but about your hypocrisy in railing in judgement against God when all the while you endorse the taking of human life at whim or choice. You, my boy, are a hypocrite.
And stop linking my position with yours. I mitigate only to save a life whereas your position seeks to justify convenience as cause. We are as far apart as light is from dark.
Peter wrote: Let me guess. You pick and choose your Leviticus laws. A prime example of relativism. Who do you choose which part of the word of God you reject?
Your wrong. Guess again!
Peter wrote: You seem to keep on dodging tough questions...
When I am walking through the bush there are some insect bites I know can be left unattended. Similarly, your manufacturing of an abstract argument to deflect from your being exposed as a hypocrite does not warrant my attention.
Peter wrote: Sure, be nice to your neighbour, but you can take slaves from the neighbouring tribes or sell them road kill. You should study what you quote.
I don't take slaves so your admonishing me to study what I quote is nonsensical.
Peter wrote: I guess evidence has not much weight here...
I gave you the mind of God under the New Covenant when quoting the relevant passage of Scripture. You erroneously raise an absence of evidence charge. This is a bit rich coming from the one who mounted the monumental absence of evidence argument for Adoptionism.
Peter wrote: Please post a new blog post about evolution/speciation/evidence and let's tackle this there.
I notice you also wanted John to post a blog on a topic you raised with him. You request more than your responses demonstrate a worthiness.
Since you raised the subject of speciation demonstrating evolution my efforts to get a clear position have met with so many twists that your position is beginning to look like a bowl of spaghetti.
If, as you recently said, speciation doesn't demonstrate that birds evolved from dinosaurs then how does speciation demonstrate evolution?
Let me ask you one question. Why are you here? You are not prepared to accept anything said from correspondents here. You just seem to want to argue the minutest point, answer questions with a question and string it out and string it out. Why are you here?
Peter,
I also can't see the reason you're still here. If your atheist views are correct, then we are fools for being Christian (that's not saying that you've at all demonstrated this). Now the mystery is, what would motivate an atheist to persist in engaging for so long with a bunch of fools? It certainly can't be that truth and questions of eternal nature matter because in an atheist world, why should it? What would it matter to an atheist if a bunch of loony CHristians want to persist in their stupidity? What end does it serve for you to persist in trying to turn us to your worldview of death being the end of it?
The strange thing for me, Peter, is that, from either side of the fence, the single guaranteed fact is that you and I are going to die soon, so why would you waste your short life on me? I just don't get it, mate?
I have been following the discussion and wondering what is motivating Peter. I am pleased the discussion has turned to this.
From where I sit Peter doesn't aeem to apply the same rigid testing to other belief systems that he applies to Christianity.
I therefore ask you Peter whether a) when younger you were sexually penetrated by someone who purported to be a Christian? b)Has someone purporting to be a Christian done you some other harm in the past c) Are you a homosexual?
Gwen
So why I'm still here? I think it is important to listen and understand an opposite views. And if there is an eternal life it seem to be important to know which God+denomination+doctrine+believes-etc one needs to believe, because the wrong choice will not end well. It is interested to see how seriously people take the Genesis 1-3. I also noticed how on this blog comments Christians start quickly name calling and defend their argument even when pointed out that they use logical fallacies.
Sam Drucker claimed that I am "not prepared to accept anything", but to me it looks the opposite. I pointed out many fallacies, but has anyone accepted any of my many argument here? I don't think so. Just see how many times the goal post was moved whey I refuted the claim, please just count...
John, why wouldn't non-Christian care about Christians. Christians seem to want to use tax payers money, some of them want to promote pseudo science and politicians pray to God to please voters when they are not competent to get things done (remember praying for rain when Howerd's water management efforts failed). I really don't think you understand non-Christians.
Gwen, we haven't talked much about other belief systems, so I don't think you can make a judgment how rigid tests I would use. I hope you apply a rigid test to Christianity too. The second part of your comment is just naïve. Why so many Christians assume strange reasons like that? Is it about how the Bible suppresses human sexuality and condemns Homosexuality? Many people leave Christianity because they don't see the truth in it and see Bible as a morally outdated fable. Nobody really believes everything in the Bible anyway, everyone just pick and chooses. Gwen, I think you should meet up with non-Christians to get to know them. You will be surprised.
1.Peter stated: "why wouldn't non-Christian care about Christians. Christians seem to want to use tax payers money"
So Christians don't pay tax?
2. Peter, you've declined to address 95% of the issues raised. You sift through and pounce on only what you feel comfortable with. (Justin, Justin, Justin...) You've convinced yourself that you've won this debate but it's clear you're being dishonest with yourself. You've brought little substance to the discussion (Justin, Justin, Justin....) so it seems that your ignoring the main points, the ones that checkmate your case (Justin, Justin, Justin...), means I'm wasting my time. Yours is an argument from quite deafening silence (apart from Justin, Justin, Justin...)
3. I wish you all the best mate in your dark, bleak universe where chance rules ("Look out Peter, that semi-trailer is falling out of the sky and is about to smash on top of your family and wipe them out!"), nothing has ultimate meaning or value (apart from Justin, Justin, Justin), and the grave is the end of it all. As you spend the rest of your life here on earth, however short or "long" it is, I hope you are "eternally" comforted by the following words that you believe won you this brief debate....
Justin, Justin, Justin....
1. Peter stated earlier:
"why wouldn't non-Christian care about Christians. Christians seem to want to use tax payers money"
and John replied:
So Christians don't pay tax?
Let's look at this witty sound bite fallacy trap. First of all it is a Red Herring fallacy. You deliberate diverted the subject knowing your Christian Church is tax exempt (income tax, payroll tax, corporate tax, gst, land tax, stamp duty, council rates...), while competing from government and non-government contracts against non-exempt non-religious organisation and some non-exempt religious organisation, while occasionally discriminating non-Christians while hiring people. Why don't Christians want a level playing field?
Secondly your argument implies to a non sequitur fallacy. Irish clubs do not automatically deserve government money even if Irish people pay taxes.
Can anyone spot the third fallacy hidden in this short answer?
2. Sorry, I tried to address as many issues as I could. I think 95% is a bit high number, but I try to do better job next time
3. My "universe" is not dark, bleak or lacking meaning or value, quite an opposite. And sorry if you got upset with the early Church father, to be honest he is not my favorite one either.
1.Yep, Irish clubs and atheist organisations give billions of dollars away in helping the poor, setting up hundreds of hospitals, home visiting the elderly, sick etc, men's and women's hostels, nursing homes, welfare organisations, orphanages, disaster relief, etc etc etc.
3. Self-delusion! People, especially atheists, can “convince” themselves of all sorts of rubbish. For example, it’s not about the meaning OF life but about putting meaning INTO life, or some such claptrap. That world famous philosopher Phillip Adams likes to occasionally parade such as wisdom, yet he’ll, if pushed, admit he’d like to live to 800. However, when all is said and done, all of us have a mere short 3 score and ten years here, and, eventually…look, I’ll let the an honest atheist explain the situation. Thomas Nagel exposed his own personal dread of this moment in time:
“Life can be wonderful, but even if it isn’t, death is usually much worse. If it cuts off the possibility of more future goods than future evils for the victim, it is a loss no matter how long he has lived when it happens. And in truth, as Richard Wollheim says, death is a misfortune even when life is no longer worth living...[This is] what’s hard to get hold of: the internal fact that one day this consciousness will black out for good and subjective time will simply stop. My death as an event in the world is easy to think about; the end of my world is not...There will be a last day, a last hour, a last minute of consciousness, and that will be it. Off the edge.”
In any case, Peter, your comment is mere assertion which, given by your previous attempts, you'd have an ice-cube's chance in hell of justifying.
Peter,
I've just reread your list of taxes the Church is supposedly exempt from. You're taking the urine, aren't you? Surely?
This is a perennial atheist bitter-pill-to-swallow red herrings. It's called envy. You see, because you guys can't organise yourselves to have any real connection with society, like the widespread establishment of hospitals, caring for the starving, and education facilities, you have to have this sour grape whinge about Christians actually doing something about this life's ills by throwing up all these irrelevant things about tax. The Church is not a business and this is why it gives considerable amounts of its money away. So why should it not get tax breaks? I mean, don't you if you donate to charity, write-off self-education costs, travel time to a second job or, the big tax exemption, salary sacrifice!
You guys talk the talk, but just can't walk the walk. "Oh, yes, I have meaning in my life" doesn't quite cut the mustard when one hears people like yourself, ad nauseum, attack the Church for actually attempting to do something about evil. (Oh, of course, you don't actually believe in evil!)
Listen atheists, can you stop using that furphy. It may work on your mates but it really is a dumb argument to use elsewhere.
Anyway, Peter, how does your soon-to-be-over atheist life actually have meaning? Do you do volunteer work or do you train-spot?
Peter wrote: I also noticed how on this blog comments Christians start quickly name calling
If a person acts hypocritically then it is appropriate to call that person a hypocrite.
Peter also wrote: and defend their argument even when pointed out that they use logical fallacies.
That all from the king of obfuscation and point twisting.
BTW, I doubt that you have been trying to learn something Peter. Rather, you just want to find an argument in everything a correspondent writes here.
John,
Just because you don't know about Australian Church tax exemption, there is no reason to make more ad hominem attacks. Just do your research. How much did your Church pay taxes last year. Churches get government contracts all the time. Have you heard about Christian business called Sanitarium. I have refuted your argument, but let me guess, you will not accept that.
Re:Charity. Non-religious charities usually have less overhead and are able to put more money to the help. Please do some research.
If you claim that tax issue is "irrelevant" them why don't you want your Church to pay them? You just advocate double standards, I jsut want a level playing field. You also confuse tax breaks and not paying taxes...
If I list my involvements in volunteer work and non-profit organistions. What would it prove to you, would you change your mind about something? please explain and I can list those.
Sam Drucker,
You still have not shown how I am hypocritical. Why don't you show me rather than just claim that?
Re fallacies: I don't need to twist points. I just pointed out where you made those. Please check my previous comments.
Peter, you don't need to twist points but sadly you do.
As to the other matter, I'll leave the record of discussion as witness to objective readers that you demonstrated hypocrisy. My case is well made. I'll leave you to your imaginary world.
1. "Re:Charity. Non-religious charities usually have less overhead and are able to put more money to the help."
So non-religious = atheist? nice try, Peter!
I'm still waiting for your list of atheist organisations which are the great saviours of mankind.
2. "If you claim that tax issue is "irrelevant" them why don't you want your Church to pay them? You just advocate double standards, I jsut want a level playing field. You also confuse tax breaks and not paying taxes..."
All Church ministers pay tax. What's your point?
Why should an atheist get a level playing field?
Now, can you point to some atheist organisations which actually give away billions, no, trillions to alleviate the misery of the outcast and downtrodden? Come on big man, can't be too hard. You like to bad mouth Christians and the Church and make all these fatuous claims and have a general whinge about how unfair life is, yet you have yet to give examples of how great the atheist movement is in its demonstration of its organised charity.
I must report back that I have tried to obtain R. Pinet's book "Invitation to Oceanography" from libraries but after several weeks I couldn't get a copy to test Peter's source for his view that salt levels do not support a young age for the earth.
I will have to submit that Pinet's work is one view but I am inclined to rely on the other view produced by Dr Russell Humphries.
Neil
Guys, I hadn't realised you'd missed me! Is late better than never?
Genuine apology on my part - I completely forgot about this blog and my intention to continue the discussion. Was only just reminded by a post by sam drucker at Michael Jensen's page.
Can't say that I'm super-glad you're writing the blog, but I'm sure there is some kind of significance in longevity. And I'm happy to continue a conversation.
However, my preference again is face to face. I've just become senior minister at St Barnabas Broadway and would love to offer you a meal and a chat if you want to come by.
Anyway, sorry again.
Grace and peace,
Mike
Post a Comment