TE, Creation and Marytrs

[Jack777]

I remember my preacher saying that believing Genesis 1:1 is the basis for everything that follows in the Bible. I did not quite know how to take it when he said that years ago, now I know what he meant or at least I think I am close to understanding.

The early Christians were martyred as much for not giving up the idea that God is the Creator as for anything else. Jews were martyred for this very same reason. While it is true that Christians believed Jesus is the Christ, it was not giving up on God as Creator that they were killed for.

Now, there are people who claim the name of Christ and want to make evolution theistic. There is a long distance between people who accepted being murdered rather than give in to naturalism and pantheism or any "ism". I was talking last night to a friend and asked his opinion of those who are touting theistic evolution on TWeb here. He noted that science has higher standing and credibility than God does even though theistic evolution and evolution are not to be taken as anything to be concerned with.

I am not a YEC but at least they defend Faith and do not put anything on a par with God as equal. If I were to err I would rather be a YEC and hold to my Faith than to compromise my Faith by trying to please evolutionists. The fideistic people are somehow not a good as non-fideistic Christians. How can anyone be a Chrisitian and not have Faith. Luther may have been a wild man, but he did recognize FAITH is important. In fact, it went a long way in cleaning up corruption of the Church.

I don't have a problem with the earth being a certain age, who cares? But it is odd to me a criticism leveled at me and some others is having Faith as central to my being a Christian.

In the Beginning God created heaven and earth.

In Hebrew it is literally

In beginning created Elohiym heaven and earth.

That beginning is the Beginning. The Beginning is Jesus Christ, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End, the Alpha and Omega.

[George Murphy]

I remember my preacher saying that believing Genesis 1:1 is the basis for everything that follows in the Bible. I did not quite know how to take it when he said that years ago, now I know what he meant or at least I think I am close to understanding.Your preacher's statement was questionable. The fact that Gen.1:1 stands first in our Bibles doesn't mean that it was the first part to be written or the 1st in matter of importance. Israel's faith began with the belief that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had brought them out of Egypt and thus in a sense had created them as a people, and that this God would continue to preserve and guide them. Belief that that God was the creator of the entire universe came later - which isn't to say that, in retrospect that it's unimportant.

The early Christians were martyred as much for not giving up the idea that God is the Creator as for anything else. Jews were martyred for this very same reason. While it is true that Christians believed Jesus is the Christ, it was not giving up on God as Creator that they were killed for.You would be hard pressed to give any proof of these claims from any of the extant records of Jewish or Christian martyrs. Of course their faith included belief in God as creator but that wasn't spcifically why they were martyred. Syrian or Roman authorities couldn't have cared less what Jews or Christians thought about the origin of the world in the distant past as long as they gave their highest loyalty to the king or emperor - & that was what they refused to do.

Now, there are people who claim the name of Christ and want to make evolution theistic. There is a long distance between people who accepted being murdered rather than give in to naturalism and pantheism or any "ism". I was talking last night to a friend and asked his opinion of those who are touting theistic evolution on TWeb here. He noted that science has higher standing and credibility than God does even though theistic evolution and evolution are not to be taken as anything to be concerned with.

I am not a YEC but at least they defend Faith and do not put anything on a par with God as equal. If I were to err I would rather be a YEC and hold to my Faith than to compromise my Faith by trying to please evolutionists. The fideistic people are somehow not a good as non-fideistic Christians. How can anyone be a Chrisitian and not have Faith. Luther may have been a wild man, but he did recognize FAITH is important. In fact, it went a long way in cleaning up corruption of the Church.You don't seem to know much about what theistic evolution actually is. There is no reason at all why belief that God created living things through an evolutionary process need be considered a "compromise." For a good discussion of theistic evolution I suggest the collection of essays, primarily by Evangelicals, edited by Keith Miller, Perspectives on an Evolving Creation (Eerdmans, 2003). A balanced discussion of TE & other views on origins is Ted Peters & Martinez Hewlett, Evolution from Creation to New Creation (Abingdon, 2003).

Shalom,
George

[Jack777]

I see you think my preacher was off base a bit. We'll see.

I will dig up something about people getting killed for Faith and post tomorrow maybe.

I know what I know and what I know is that balancing God Versus Evolution is a mistake. God has no equal.

[AllDay]

Faith is belief that does not rest on reason/evidence. Meaning that there is some reason/evidence to believe, but reason/evidence doesn't take you all the way. It is not a belief in the proven. I have no problem with faith. IMO, it takes faith to believe in the resurrection and other miracles.



Hope is belief without evidence/reason. Hope is not faith to me. Hope is not a show of loyalty. There are certain elements of the Bible that I am looking at to see if I view them as more "requiring faith" or more "requiring hope".



I am willing to step back, research the situation and the history and try and evaluate it from there. It is worth it to me to see what requires faith and what requires hope, if for no other reason that to know what is required.



-------------------------------------



Jack777, no matter how you view it, doesn't God "create the heavens and the Earth in the beginning"? Isn't God both the Creator and the beginning in any creation situation? I don't want to get too far involved in the conversation b/c I am no expert in any field regarding the situation.



There are various views on the topic that all agree on God being the Creator. I don't particularly view one as those as being "more Christian" than the other, and I find the suggestion or implication as such (not saying you are Jack) as being a perfect example of "man overstepping his boundary". In truth, I feel some Christian leaders have been somewhat shady in their presentation -- taking advantage of random quotes, half-stories, etc to present a situation that is not necessarily there. I feel duped, and somewhat taken advantage of, and most of all ... disappointed.

[Constantine]

Theistic Evolutionists do NOT put anything on par wih God. Biological evolution isn't a thing to be put on par with anyhing. It is a pocess guided by natural law. Natural law was created by God in the begining when he created matter and energy and caused the big bang.

Evolution is viewed by theistic evolutionists like myself as simply another part of the created universe. Geology "evolves" as the tectonic lates move around, whether systems "evolve" as the form and grow. These processes are no different than biological evolution. Evolution just get the spot light because it hits closer to home, as in human origins.

To TE's, evoluion is simply a tool used by God.

[AllDay]

I know what I know and what I know is that balancing God Versus Evolution is a mistake. God has no equal.Who is equalizing evolution and God?

I am asking from the perspective of someone that has, for the most part, shared your viewpoint on the subject. We are taught from the time we are young that "if you believe God created, then you believe when God said 'let the earth bring forth animals, etc' that *poof* the animals were there instantly. If you don't believe this, then you don't believe God created." I was always under the impression that you had to choose between God and evolution. One was intelligent and loving, the other was mindless and cruel. Ain't that how it goes?

Because I have always believed in Godand Jesus, I was compelled to "look at it again". Long story short, I was "scared straight" into believing a literal 6-day creation because my "placing thorns before the Fall" [by considering evolution] was one of the worst things a Christian could do, and by not believing a "literal 6-day creation", I was heading down a one way street of "denying the Resurrection ever happened" ... I certainly didn't want to do that. Somebody has a sig line that says something like "someone convinced against their will, holds their opinion still". That desrcibes me, in that regard.

I came here to find out what TE was all about [I didn't even know there was such a thing], because I believe in God, and I believe that Jesus is exactly who he said he was, but I also find it very difficult to ignore or hand-wave evolution off. The only way I could do the latter was to basically regulate myself to reading select websites/sources only.

IMO, the only way to view evolution as being equal or an alternative to God is to view evolution as being possible [or probable] without God's influence, design, intelligence, or guiding hand [I sure don't]. I don't think anyone is confusing who is "running the show". I think people are looking at the "painting" and trying to figure what "technique" the "artist" used. That certainly does not imply that the techique is even remotely close to being equal to the artist.

I apologize for hijacking your thread [I really do]. I guess I am frustrated at leaders misrepresenting the situation in order to manipulate, intimidate, or misdirect other Christians into the propostion of [1] accepting their specific interpretation of the situation, or [2] not loving God [IMO].

[George Murphy]

I see you think my preacher was off base a bit. We'll see.

I will dig up something about people getting killed for Faith and post tomorrow maybe.

I know what I know and what I know is that balancing God Versus Evolution is a mistake. God has no equal.If I think that God acts through the processes of solar energy, weather, soil chemistry, genetics, photosynthesis &c to provide my daily bread, does that mean that I'm putting those processes on a par with God?

Shalom,
George

[grmorton]

I see you think my preacher was off base a bit. We'll see.

I will dig up something about people getting killed for Faith and post tomorrow maybe.

I know what I know and what I know is that balancing God Versus Evolution is a mistake. God has no equal.


There was a time when I studied the martyrs quite heavily--both ancient and modern. I don't recall a single one being martyred for YEC. I will be surprised if you find any. They were martyred for their belief in Christ, or by other christians for their doctrine.

[shunyadragon]

Now, there are people who claim the name of Christ and want to make evolution theistic. There is a long distance between people who accepted being murdered rather than give in to naturalism and pantheism or any "ism". I was talking last night to a friend and asked his opinion of those who are touting theistic evolution on TWeb here. He noted that science has higher standing and credibility than God does even though theistic evolution and evolution are not to be taken as anything to be concerned with.
I agree with Glenn that you have misconceptions concerning what TE is. Believers in TE do not want to make evolution theistic, nor do they give into to any "ism". All beleivers in TE that I know do not believe 'science has a higher standing and credibility than that of God.' Who is 'He' you quote here? No TE on Tweb has proposed this a far as I know.

[grmorton]

I agree with Glenn that you have misconceptions concerning what TE is. Believers in TE do not want to make evolution theistic, nor do they give into to any "ism". All beleivers in TE that I know do not believe 'science has a higher standing and credibility than that of God.' Who is 'He' you quote here? No TE on Tweb has proposed this a far as I know.


I missed this nuance in Jack777's piece. OEC and YEC are interpretations of the Bible. God is not an interpretation of the Bible. Therefore YEC and OEC are not God. We dare not act like our interpretation is equivalent to God's. That is what you are doing--equating your interpretation of the Bible with divine inspiration. What we have is knowledge that science has a higher credibility than the flawed YEC or some typical Old earth creationist interpretation, like the Day Age view, which explains nothing geological, astronomical, biological, etc.

[grmorton]

I agree with Glenn that you have misconceptions concerning what TE is. Believers in TE do not want to make evolution theistic, nor do they give into to any "ism". All beleivers in TE that I know do not believe 'science has a higher standing and credibility than that of God.' Who is 'He' you quote here? No TE on Tweb has proposed this a far as I know.


I missed this nuance in Jack777's piece. OEC and YEC are interpretations of the Bible. God is not an interpretation of the Bible. Therefore YEC and OEC are not God. We dare not act like our interpretation is equivalent to God's. That is what Jack777 is doing--equating his interpretation of the Bible with divine inspiration. What we have is knowledge that science has a higher credibility than the flawed YEC or some typical Old earth creationist interpretation, like the Day Age view, which explains nothing geological, astronomical, biological, etc.

[Jack777]

First, I would not have said that people were martyred for refusing to give up God as creator if I did not know that to be a fact. I wrote something recently that is about 20 pages which has that as a central point. I will answer you George Murphy as to that specific point.

If I am missing something about TE, maybe I will have to see it for myself and will duly note that.

So, if I have a criticism of TE then someone has to step forward and make YEC and OEC morally and logically equivalent to TE. That is a nice parlor trick but I am sick of that kind of thing to excuse and defend anything.

I will answer soon, but have some work to do to get if off paper and onto MSWord

[rogero]

First, I would not have said that people were martyred for refusing to give up God as creator if I did not know that to be a fact. I wrote something recently that is about 20 pages which has that as a central point. I will answer you George Murphy as to that specific point.

If I am missing something about TE, maybe I will have to see it for myself and will duly note that.

So, if I have a criticism of TE then someone has to step forward and make YEC and OEC morally and logically equivalent to TE. That is a nice parlor trick but I am sick of that kind of thing to excuse and defend anything.

I will answer soon, but have some work to do to get if off paper and onto MSWord
I'm waiting in happy anticipation of this document. The title of this thread is a curiousity -- TE, Creation, and Martyrs. I haven't the foggiest notion of how you are planning to tie these all together, but then again most of your posts don't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Jack, just to reiterate and summarize what others have said, TE and Creation are not opposites, nor are they antagonistic in any way. TEs believe that God uses natural processes (of which biological evolution is one -- not a "god" as you've stated before) to facilitate creation.

That you will somehow tie Christian martyrdom to TE is simply incredible, and that's why I look forward to your promised exposition. Your words "...that people were martyred for refusing to give up God as creator if I did not know that to be a fact" is sure interesting. Just bear in mind before you step too far into the morass and say something you'll regret, that TEs also believe in God as creator.

R

[Jack777]

Quote from rogero,

"then again most of your posts don't make a whole lot of sense to me."

That is okay, they don't have to make sense to you. Somehow I get the sense you just cannot wait to have something to criticize. But then again, maybe it is just me. If I can understand what I mean then that will at least be something.:smile:

[rogero]

Quote from rogero,

"then again most of your posts don't make a whole lot of sense to me."

That is okay, they don't have to make sense to you. Somehow I get the sense you just cannot wait to have something to criticize. But then again, maybe it is just me. If I can understand what I mean then that will at least be something.:smile:
Well, your posts should make some sense to me, since most folks consider me to be a reasonable and somewhat intelligent person - believe it or not.

No, what I can't wait for is for you to explain the cryptic nature of the thread you started. I truly hope you will come to understand that TE and Creation are not incompatible and that you don't say something that you will regret.

R

[Jack777]

Well, I appreciate your comments. Thanks.

[kofh2u]

I agree with Glenn that you have misconceptions concerning what TE is. Believers in TE do not want to make evolution theistic, nor do they give into to any "ism". All beleivers in TE that I know do not believe 'science has a higher standing and credibility than that of God.' Who is 'He' you quote here? No TE on Tweb has proposed this a far as I know.

I agree with you shuny.

As far as I have been able to surmise, in the absence of a strict definition for TE, the basic idea of all is that God is ultimately behind the matter.

TE people seem to be saying what the Pope said publically in 1998:

"There is too much secular evidence in support of evolution as a theory for the Church to oppose the idea."

I would add that there is plenty of scripture to support TE.

1Cor. 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump (the final moment of the second coming): for the trumpet (that sounds from our own awakened Unconscious Mind) shall sound (as in the Transfiguration), and the "dead," (i.e.; genetically preserved, Collective Unconscious Minds stored in every re-manufacured brain of each new born baby), shall be raised, (mentally) incorruptible, (as spirit-like thoughts), and we shall (evolve to a new level of humanity), be changed (into Homoiousian beings).






Rev. 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars, (the sevenfold
spirit of the psyche: Id, Libido, Ego, Anima, Self, Harmony, Superego):

[Jack777]

Well, I am glad to read comments and I will answer soon. Only ltd time right now.


quick

about Faith, it is a gift from God that is the key. I am proud to be fideistic.

Semper Fidelis

[rogero]

Well, I am glad to read comments and I will answer soon. Only ltd time right now.


quick

about Faith, it is a gift from God that is the key. I am proud to be fideistic.

Semper Fidelis
Fine, Jack. I'm still waiting for your profound exposition of how TE (which is a view on how God creates) is related to "Marytrs." I'm racking my brain as to how you plan to disparage TE with your forthcoming opus.

Well, it's so good to be proud of something, isn't it? BTW, what's your definition of "fideism"? Do you mean that your interpretation of Genesis is correct no matter what -- i.e., faith irrespective of reason? Your interpretation of Genesis is correct regardless of the physical evidence? I sure hope that's not the case.

R

[Tickle Me Goody]

I know what I know and what I know is that balancing God Versus Evolution is a mistake. God has no equal.That makes very little sense to me. Why do you use Geneis 1-1 to contrast evolution as equal to God?. why did you chose evolution instead of gravity or quantum mechanics. Do you think that all science is evil and tries to replace God. If this what you thnk, can you explain why?

Why do you think that first century martydom has anything to do with science? We have more martyrs today and they die becuse of teaching Jesus, not because of anything to do with evolution.

Really interested.

GG

[kofh2u]

That makes very little sense to me. Why do you use Geneis 1-1 to contrast evolution as equal to God?. why did you chose evolution instead of gravity or quantum mechanics. Do you think that all science is evil and tries to replace God. If this what you thnk, can you explain why?

Why do you think that first century martydom has anything to do with science? We have more martyrs today and they die becuse of teaching Jesus, not because of anything to do with evolution.

Really interested.

GG


I have no idea where Jack777 is going with his comments.

How he seems to miss the point, that TE opposes YEC ideas. TE actually says God is the Prime Moving ingredient behind this process which He applies to the on-going evolutionary process. Evolution is merely the means to His ends.

In addition, TE as I understand it,metaphorically uses the word God, and personalizes it by use of the pronoun, His, especially when capitalized capitalized, as a traditional reference to inaffiable, unknowable, transcendent, pre-existing entity that pre-dates the Big bang. It is philospohically compatable to the Prime Mover or the First Cause.

[Jack777]

Still working on my answer to George Murphy.

I did not say science is evil.

[Tickle Me Goody]

Still working on my answer to George Murphy.

I did not say science is evil.
Just that it "replaces God".
But "not evil".

:huh:

GG

[Jack777]

Why would evolution be evil? Evolution is the product of imagination to start with, then people snooped around to see if that imagination matches up with stuff they looked at. They are still snooping around and have not found fact to back it up.

[George Murphy]

Still working on my answer to George Murphy.

I did not say science is evil.What's to "work on"? Just send names & approximate dates, with references, to some Jews or Christians that you think were martyred specifically for their belief in creation. Please do not spend any time "working on" some smoke & mirrors performance.

Shalom,
George

[Jack777]

Funny stuff

[kofh2u]

What's to "work on"? Just send names & approximate dates, with references, to some Jews or Christians that you think were martyred specifically for their belief in creation. Please do not spend any time "working on" some smoke & mirrors performance.

Shalom,
George

Oh, just names.

How about that Scopes guy, didn't they get him?

Just off thecuff, I think that they dort of "crucified" Galilleo, too, wouldn't you agree?

Also, Rene' Descartes ought quafy. "They" martryed him 21st century style!

Rene realized the "I think, therefore... 'I am'... he knew that was it, Revelation 1! God was immanent, in our mind! God was the image of our rational ability to think!

So, in mathematically framing the cosmos in trhee dimensions of X,Y,Z he realized that the entire universe had numbers, even for the very hair on our head! Everything could be given an address and the logic in our human capacity to abstract the real world beyond our inner sanctum would/could be understood.

He wrote his first book. "The Rules by Which to Know All Things." Just before publication, the Inquisition arrested Galileo.

Descartes used his newly dis over system for understandinb things, so he didn't try to publish.

Nevertheless, the Pope found out, and under questioning, Descartes produced hus manuscript. Cleverly, not to blatantly martyr him, the Pope... now get this modern type executive discision... the Roman Catholic Publishing House BOUGHT his book from him! Only, they offered no royalties and forgot to actual go to press.

This is the "GOOD NEWS."
The Vatican still has the manuscript, and, maybe we could get them to let us read what this wonderful man had to say!

[rogero]

Why would evolution be evil? Evolution is the product of imagination to start with, then people snooped around to see if that imagination matches up with stuff they looked at. They are still snooping around and have not found fact to back it up.
Yet another unsubstantiated ipse dixit from ol' Jack. "Product of imagination"? That's a good one! :lol:

[rogero]

Oh, just names.

How about that Scopes guy, didn't they get him?

Just off thecuff, I think that they dort of "crucified" Galilleo, too, wouldn't you agree?

Also, Rene' Descartes ought quafy. "They" martryed him 21st century style!

Rene realized the "I think, therefore... 'I am'... he knew that was it, Revelation 1! God was immanent, in our mind! God was the image of our rational ability to think!

So, in mathematically framing the cosmos in trhee dimensions of X,Y,Z he realized that the entire universe had numbers, even for the very hair on our head! Everything could be given an address and the logic in our human capacity to abstract the real world beyond our inner sanctum would/could be understood.

He wrote his first book. "The Rules by Which to Know All Things." Just before publication, the Inquisition arrested Galileo.

Descartes used his newly dis over system for understandinb things, so he didn't try to publish.

Nevertheless, the Pope found out, and under questioning, Descartes produced hus manuscript. Cleverly, not to blatantly martyr him, the Pope... now get this modern type executive discision... the Roman Catholic Publishing House BOUGHT his book from him! Only, they offered no royalties and forgot to actual go to press.

This is the "GOOD NEWS."
The Vatican still has the manuscript, and, maybe we could get them to let us read what this wonderful man had to say!
So, you consider the "Scopes guy" to be a martyr? I wonder if Polycarp of Smyrna would find that amusing?

And the "they that sort of 'crucified' Galileo" was the established Church holding onto bad science -- just the opposite of what ol' Jack apparently is referring to (although it's hard to decipher his cryptography.)


R

[AllDay]

Why would evolution be evil? Evolution is the product of imagination to start with, then people snooped around to see if that imagination matches up with stuff they looked at. They are still snooping around and have not found fact to back it up.
That's it? That's how evolution is evil?

Isn't the idea of "knowing what happened" and then "snooping around for scientific evidence to back it up" the argument used against creationism? I understand the argument against creationism as being "they know the conclusion before looking at the evidence" [as opposed to testing the hypothesis].

There has to be a better explanation than "it's imagination not supported by any facts" to explain how evolution is evil. I'm really not following this line of reasoning.

-------------------------------

[grmorton]

Why would evolution be evil? Evolution is the product of imagination to start with, then people snooped around to see if that imagination matches up with stuff they looked at. They are still snooping around and have not found fact to back it up.


With your record of mistaken facts (1.5 billion year old earth, worldwide Mississippian-Pennsylvanian Unconformity, humans derived from Trilobites), I wouldn't think you are the best judge for what is and isn't a good match.

[lucaspa]

Evolution is the product of imagination to start with, then people snooped around to see if that imagination matches up with stuff they looked at. They are still snooping around and have not found fact to back it up.That's not the way Darwin worked. Darwin started out creationist, remember. In the voyage of the Beagle, Darwin simply collected facts without any theory involved. For instance, he simply collected samples of birds on the Galapagos without making any conclusions about what they were.

LATER, back in England, when Darwin had a ornithologist look at the samples, he was told that they were all finches, despite the very profound differences between species. At this point Darwin was thinking transmutation of species, but that was based on DATA he had collected on the Beagle.

His discovery of the mechanism of evolution was imagination, but imagination tying together different bits of data into a coherent whole. One bit was the observation on the geometric increase in population compared to the arithmetic increase in resources (Malthus), the other was his and other people's observation on the great variety between individuals. Combined, you get natural selection.

Jack, you REALLY need to read Origin of the Species. It's online. Darwin packed the book with facts to support the theory. Here is just one:
"With plants there is a vast destruction of seeds, but, from some observations which I have made, it appears that the seedlings suffer most from germinating in ground already thickly stocked with other plants. Seedlings, also, are destroyed in vast numbers by various enemies; for instance, on a piece of ground three feet long and two wide, dug and cleared, and where there could be no choking from other plants, I marked all the seedlings of our native weeds as they came up, and out of 357 no less than 295 were destroyed, chiefly by slugs and insects." Origin of the Species 6th Edition, pg 54

Since then scientists have been finding facts to support evolution. Please go to PubMed and enter "evolution" as your search term. You've got over 200,000 articles of facts!

BTW, I also am waiting in great anticipation that the early Christians were killed not because of the faith in Jesus Christ, but because they would not give up God as Creator! Everything I have heard says the opposite.

Finally, want to know what TE is? See the first quote in my signature. Theistic evolution is simply the belief that God created using the processes discovered by science.

[kofh2u]

So, you consider the "Scopes guy" to be a martyr? I wonder if Polycarp of Smyrna would find that amusing?

And the "they that sort of 'crucified' Galileo" was the established Church holding onto bad science -- just the opposite of what ol' Jack apparently is referring to (although it's hard to decipher his cryptography.)


R

Huh,...

"So, you consider the "Scopes guy" to be a martyr? I wonder if Polycarp of Smyrna would find that amusing?"

They both suffered in the name of Truth, what's funny about that?

What do you mean... "st the opposite of what ol' Jack apparently is referring "...

Rev. 3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold, (the spiritual insights into the irrepressible idea of Psychic Consciousness emerging from scripture) tried in the fire (of time), that thou mayest be rich (in continued leadership); and white raiment (filling blank pages with
revised misinterpretations), that thou mayest be clothed (in protection) that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear (or, reappear, such as visited in Geocentricism), and anoint thine eyes (so as to apprise thine thinking) with eyesalve (with secularly acceptable scriptural confirmations), that thou mayest see (the unsupportability of thy
intuitive irrationalities).

[George Murphy]

Folks, I suggest that the rest of us just remain quiet on this thread in order to build up an appropriate atmosphere of tense expectation for Jack's revelation about martyrs for creation. I'm sure it will be a winner.

Shalom,
George

[kofh2u]

Folks, I suggest that the rest of us just remain quiet on this thread in order to build up an appropriate atmosphere of tense expectation for Jack's revelation about martyrs for creation. I'm sure it will be a winner.

Shalom,
George

Jack777 seems right and wrong.

Jack777 seems to have the correct intuitive sense, about the need for a possible shedding of rigtheous blood, in the name of ameliorating long standing Sociological sin.

There maybe no other alternative, in some circumstances.

But, the idea supports Evolution, in the form of a growing human Consciousness and a sense of needed change, i.e.; Adaption.

Martrydom is both an avertisement for, and an insistence upon, a new direction for mankind.

Jack777 is 100% right about ths half of his observation.

He seems totally on the wrong side, however, in supporting the archaic Status Quo in dogma, and ignoring the evermore obvious Social Darwinism at work.

If all that is needed for the evil, sons of predition, to prevail is that the present, rather large number (144,000) of the sons of God TO DO nothing, then martrydom must be entertained in the name of God, now.

Possibly, martyrs are needed. Maybe only @144,000, from the fields of our professing, 1.44 billion membered, world-wide Christian community.

One good Christian in 10,000.

In the name of God, man's social advancement, man's eternal salvation as a species, is there not a demand for redemption from our sin of self-serving selfishness and social inaction that demands the spilling of blood?

Such a body of men, only 144,000 in number, drawn from the tares and wheatfields of the kingdom of heaven, Christianity, can move mountains, today, by their collective action.

The Prince of Peace has quite an extensive army of Christian "soldiers," legions, available today, whose love for his present Islamic enemy can/could/ought bring forth a new way of thinking, and a new way of social behaviors.

Social evolution brining forth a New Heaven and a New Earth is the next revolution in God's Creation.

Rev. 16:12 And the sixth angel (an insight within John's mind), poured out his vial (of intuitions) upon the great river (of Islam), Euphrates; and the waters (of that people's theology) thereof was dried up (and ready for the fire of Christian baptism), that the way (of the conversion to Christ) of the (Mullah) kings of the (middle) east might be prepared.

[rogero]

Jack777 seems right and wrong.

Jack777 seems to have the correct intuitive sense, about the need for a possible shedding of rigtheous blood, in the name of ameliorating long standing Sociological sin.

There maybe no other alternative, in some circumstances.

But, the idea supports Evolution, in the form of a growing human Consciousness and a sense of needed change, i.e.; Adaption.

Martrydom is both an avertisement for, and an insistence upon, a new direction for mankind.

Jack777 is 100% right about ths half of his observation.

He seems totally on the wrong side, however, in supporting the archaic Status Quo in dogma, and ignoring the evermore obvious Social Darwinism at work.

If all that is needed for the evil, sons of predition, to prevail is that the present, rather large number (144,000) of the sons of God TO DO nothing, then martrydom must be entertained in the name of God, now.

Possibly, martyrs are needed. Maybe only @144,000, from the fields of our professing, 1.44 billion membered, world-wide Christian community.

One good Christian in 10,000.

In the name of God, man's social advancement, man's eternal salvation as a species, is there not a demand for redemption from our sin of self-serving selfishness and social inaction that demands the spilling of blood?

Such a body of men, only 144,000 in number, drawn from the tares and wheatfields of the kingdom of heaven, Christianity, can move mountains, today, by their collective action.

The Prince of Peace has quite an extensive army of Christian "soldiers," legions, available today, whose love for his present Islamic enemy can/could/ought bring forth a new way of thinking, and a new way of social behaviors.

Social evolution brining forth a New Heaven and a New Earth is the next revolution in God's Creation.

Rev. 16:12 And the sixth angel (an insight within John's mind), poured out his vial (of intuitions) upon the great river (of Islam), Euphrates; and the waters (of that people's theology) thereof was dried up (and ready for the fire of Christian baptism), that the way (of the conversion to Christ) of the (Mullah) kings of the (middle) east might be prepared.
Can anyone here provide a translation of this rambling gibberish? Does anyone care?

[kofh2u]

Can anyone here provide a translation of this rambling gibberish? Does anyone care?


Could you be more specific?

Dan. 12:10 ... and none of the wicked shall understand;
but the wise shall understand.

[rogero]

Could you be more specific?

Dan. 12:10 ... and none of the wicked shall understand;
but the wise shall understand.
I concur with George that we should wait for Jack777 to put forth his epiphaniac opus. But, until such time one must ponder whether Kofh2u (is he trying to spread the Consumption?) is fruitier than a nutcake or nuttier than a fruitcake?

And, Qophy -- I request an apology that you infer that I'm part of "the wicked that do not understand." Are you a JW or just a megalomaniac -- being the "Lion of Judah" (David Judah Loeb) and all?

R

[kuboes1831]

Can anyone here provide a translation of this rambling gibberish? Does anyone care?

der der der der der der der der der der der der der der der der der der der der der der der der der der der der der der der der der der der der der der der der der der der der der der der der der der der der der der der

[lucaspa]

But, the idea supports Evolution, in the form of a growing human Consciousness and a sense of needed change, i.e.; Adaption.
I'm with Rogero. This post doesn't make sense. But I would like to focus on a few statements to get some clarification while we wait for Jack (no sense in holding our breath, is there?)

Are you implying that humans have a GROUP consciousness? In evolution, adaptation is something that happens to populations, but they never "sense of needed change". Rather, those individuals lucky enough to be born with designs useful in competing scarce resources are preserved in the Struggle for Existence.

He seems totally on the wrong side, however, in supporting the archaic Status Quo in dogma, and ignoring the evermore obvious Social Darwinism at work.
Can you please document this "evermore obvious Social Darwinism at work"? You are aware, aren't you, that Social Darwinism is a totally discredited idea. It's not evolution and never was.

In the name of God, man's social advancement, man's eternal salvation as a species, is there not a demand for redemption from our sin of self-serving selfishness and social inaction that demands the spilling of blood? And here I thought Jesus sacrifice was PERSONAL. Not for the species, but for MY salvation.

[Jack777]

Yikes!

Anyways, I appreciate the responses from one and all. Not being able to get on the internet when I want does not help my response time.

In answer to George Murphy:

The martyr that comes to mind is Vibia Perpetua. She was mauled by a mad heifer until the crowd shouted "enough" and then was beheaded. This was under Emperor Septimus Severus.

I decided to not post what I was going to, but oh well.

I notice that some including George Murphy may think that the Documentary Hypothesis, and the rest of Higher Criticism is valid judging by being corrected as to when the Torah was written down. That may explain some things. I am surprised anyone still believes that garbage.

God gave the Torah to Moses from His mouth to the mouth of Moses.

If people do not think that the Bible is true and that Jesus did not know what He was talking about that may be why some still hang onto the idea of elohist and priestly documents. I always forget that some do not think the Bible is the Word of God.

I had a Baptist Sunday School teacher explaining how God evolved in people's minds and while the Jews were in Babylon they decided to put together some docs laying about to make a book. The thing is the Torah is from God letter for letter in a specific sequence exactly.

Genesis 1:1 is distinct in that it says "Elohiym created". In the Leningrad Codex the word order is "In Beginning created Elohiym..." Read Ovid, Hesiod, and others and you will see that this is a distinct statement.

Also, as far as why people were martyred it should be kept in mind that God the Creator was central to the difference between pagans and Christians. Marcus Aurelius received a plea for Christians because the charges were that we are atheists had sex with our mothers and were generally immoral. In early church doctrine God as Creator is most important as well as God as Redeemer.

Read Eusebius and that will help.

To take the Theory of Evolution and try to blend it with the Bible skews what the witness is of God. God is continually active in what goes on in our lives.

I appreciate the challenge though.

I will answer the rest later.

[rogero]

Holy moly, Jack -- this is an incredibly new low in your apologetic pursuits!


Yikes!

Anyways, I appreciate the responses from one and all. Not being able to get on the internet when I want does not help my response time.

In answer to George Murphy:

The martyr that comes to mind is Vibia Perpetua. She was mauled by a mad heifer until the crowd shouted "enough" and then was beheaded. This was under Emperor Septimus Severus.



How in the name of Heaven is this poor woman an example of how TE is related to martyrdom?



I decided to not post what I was going to, but oh well.


Why, 'cause it was even goofier than the Vibia example?



I notice that some including George Murphy may think that the Documentary Hypothesis, and the rest of Higher Criticism is valid judging by being corrected as to when the Torah was written down. That may explain some things. I am surprised anyone still believes that garbage.

God gave the Torah to Moses from His mouth to the mouth of Moses.



More Jack sez... I'm surprised anyone still believes the garbage you spew, but someone must since you have gotten pearls.



If people do not think that the Bible is true and that Jesus did not know what He was talking about that may be why some still hang onto the idea of elohist and priestly documents. I always forget that some do not think the Bible is the Word of God.


Will you stop misrepresenting TE Christians by saying they do not think the Bible is true?

BTW, the JEPD concept is fairly standard Roman Catholic theology, but of course you must believe that RC do not think the Bible is Word of God.

Shameful...



I had a Baptist Sunday School teacher explaining how God evolved in people's minds and while the Jews were in Babylon they decided to put together some docs laying about to make a book. The thing is the Torah is from God letter for letter in a specific sequence exactly.


Again, more Jack sez...



Genesis 1:1 is distinct in that it says "Elohiym created". In the Leningrad Codex the word order is "In Beginning created Elohiym..." Read Ovid, Hesiod, and others and you will see that this is a distinct statement.


TEs believe this too, Jack.



Also, as far as why people were martyred it should be kept in mind that God the Creator was central to the difference between pagans and Christians. Marcus Aurelius received a plea for Christians because the charges were that we are atheists had sex with our mothers and were generally immoral. In early church doctrine God as Creator is most important as well as God as Redeemer.

Read Eusebius and that will help.


More of Jack's bizarre and disgraceful misrepresentation and misunderstanding of Creation...

Why don't support that last statement instead of just referring us to Eusebius? Anyway, I thought you believe the Bible, not Eusebius like dem tder apostate RCs do?



To take the Theory of Evolution and try to blend it with the Bible skews what the witness is of God. God is continually active in what goes on in our lives.


Absolute unsubstantiated nonsense, Jack. I suppose you don't understand the difference among the words "Who", "why", and "how"? And what does your last sentence to do with your view as to how God creates? This is how TEs believe.




I appreciate the challenge though.

I will answer the rest later.
It's hard to tell whether or not you appreciate the challenge, since you answer requests with irrelevant nonsense like the above.

R

[George Murphy]

Yikes!

Anyways, I appreciate the responses from one and all. Not being able to get on the internet when I want does not help my response time.

In answer to George Murphy:

The martyr that comes to mind is Vibia Perpetua. She was mauled by a mad heifer until the crowd shouted "enough" and then was beheaded. This was under Emperor Septimus Severus.
All the rest of your post is a pitiful smokescreen. You can find "The Passion of Perpetua and Felicitas" in Vol.III of The Ante-Nicene Fathers and see that absolutely nothing is said about being martyred because of belief in creation. Perpetua was condemnded because she admitted to being a Christian and would not offer sacrifice for the well-being of the emperors.

What a farce your claim has turned out to be!

Shalom,
George

[kofh2u]

I'm with Rogero. This post doesn't make sense. But I would like to focus on a few statements to get some clarification while we wait for Jack (no sense in holding our breath, is there?)

Are you implying that humans have a GROUP consciousness? In evolution, adaptation is something that happens to populations, but they never "sense of needed change". Rather, those individuals lucky enough to be born with designs useful in competing scarce resources are preserved in the Struggle for Existence.


Can you please document this "evermore obvious Social Darwinism at work"? You are aware, aren't you, that Social Darwinism is a totally discredited idea. It's not evolution and never was.

And here I thought Jesus sacrifice was PERSONAL. Not for the species, but for MY salvation.


I'm with Rogero.

KOFHY:
You can be. You ask polite questions.


lucaspa:
This post doesn't make sense.

KOFHY:
It can't be the post.
I understand it.
It must be the people reading it who can make sense... out of it.

lucaspa:

But I would like to focus on a few statements to get some clarification while we wait for Jack (no sense in holding our breath, is there?)

KOFHY:
"I would like to"....
What's in it for me, then?


lucaspa:
Are you implying that humans have a GROUP consciousness?

KOFHY:
Well, you and I are consciously posting to one another. I am aware of you, you of me,.. rogerooh and others.

Perhaps you mean my reference to Group Unconsciousness, the Collective Consciousness we experience.

We also have a Collective Subconscious.

Maybe you ought reflect on the manifestation of collective Subconscious Thinking. Then, you might think about the Unconscious Mind.

For instance, Islam sees us as collectively the "Big Libido." That we in Western Society do not agree, deny the charge, or are oblivious to what the Muslims see suggests a subconscious aspect to this thinking which is evidenved in our cultural behaviors.


lucaspa:
In evolution, adaptation is something that happens to populations, but they never "sense of needed change".

KOFHY;
Man has the ability to do this, though.
We can "sense" environmental
dangers, even long range, for instance.
We can fight against virus with science. Or, we can continue behaviors, like Nuclear War and refuse to adapt to peaceful co-existence.
We are conscious, and we can/could use this facility to affect our own changes, and to prepare for the effect of the future, even
giant meteors, for instance... if we think/thought about it.

lucaspa:
Rather, those individuals lucky enough to be born with designs useful in competing scarce resources are preserved in the Struggle for Existence.

KOFHY:
Well, I guess after reading me above you might see that I think we are the lucky individuals. Humans ARE born with the ability to think, to see designs or patterns in the environment. in the abstract.
Man's mind can image the pantheistic Creation and understand God and his creation.

Gen. 1:27 So God, (the theistic Almighty Universal Force), created man (whose facility of mind enabled him to image The Universal Reality, abstractly and mathematically), so created (the external theistic Universal Force), God, him (man, in God's own immanent reflection); male and female created he them.

KOFHY:
By such means, we have no excuse to eliminate ourselves thoughtlessly:

Rom. 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the
world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:


lucaspa:
Can you please document this "evermore obvious Social Darwinism at work"?


KOFHY:
Rev. 1:20 The mystery (of the inordinate use of the number seven in scripture), of the seven stars (of the "soul." [psyke'' Gr.]) which thou sawest in my right hand, (Id, Libido, Ego, Anima, Self, Superego, Harmony, the archetypal Subconscious mediators of human behavior), and the seven golden candlesticks, (those seven developmental stages of Christianity):
The seven stars are the angels,
(psychological, dominating factors behind behavior) of the seven
churches, (gradually evolving through seven sociological stages,
symbolizing seven mental paradigms of Christian maturation): the seven
candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches, (seven different sociological and developmental periods of Christianity):
(1) the Time of the Apostles, (2) the Terror of Nero, (3) the early
Papacy (313 AD), (4) Universal Roman Catholicism, (5) The Reformed Catholic Church, (6) Protestantism, and (7) Humanistic Christianity.


lucaspa:
And here I thought Jesus sacrifice was PERSONAL. Not for the species, but for MY salvation.

KOFHY:
Both.
The incremental effect of personal salvation has emense future
consequences for the species. However, personally, the life in you has never been dead! Not since the first spark of life.

By means of meiosis and mitosis, you are part of the Tree of (biological) Life that has been here from the start. In you, in your brain, genetically reproduced and reproducible in the future is the real "you."
It, "you," are 99% Unconscious Mind. But, you are a storehouse
of memories and previous phylogenetic experience. Presently, this is locked and unavailable to you. But, it will not always be so.

Revelation 21:4-5 And God shall wipe away (in their awakened Unconscious Mind) all tears from their eyes; and (in genetic memories of prior existences)
there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain (as
experienced in hypnosis now): for the former things (in the life
experience) are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things (in human
experience) new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are
(scientifically) true and (worthy of) faithful (psychological acceptance
based upon the best thinking in that Humanity.)

Carl Jung:

The Collective Unconscious is a storehouse of all the experiences of humankind transmitted to each individual. As the repository for all
past experiences, it includes even our pre-human animal ancestry.
(Assumablely through the genetic processes.) It becomes the primary base of a person's psyche, directing and influencing behavior. It is the deepest and most inaccessible level of the psyche. Jung believed that a person accumulates and files all of his past experiences, so does humankind, collectively.

[rogero]

...

lucaspa:
Can you please document this "evermore obvious Social Darwinism at work"?


KOFHY:
Rev. 1:20 The mystery (of the inordinate use of the number seven in scripture), of the seven stars (of the "soul." [psyke'' Gr.]) which thou sawest in my right hand, (Id, Libido, Ego, Anima, Self, Superego, Harmony, the archetypal Subconscious mediators of human behavior), and the seven golden candlesticks, (those seven developmental stages of Christianity):
The seven stars are the angels,
(psychological, dominating factors behind behavior) of the seven
churches, (gradually evolving through seven sociological stages,
symbolizing seven mental paradigms of Christian maturation): the seven
candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches, (seven different sociological and developmental periods of Christianity):
(1) the Time of the Apostles, (2) the Terror of Nero, (3) the early
Papacy (313 AD), (4) Universal Roman Catholicism, (5) The Reformed Catholic Church, (6) Protestantism, and (7) Humanistic Christianity.

...
Nutcake, errr... Qophy,

Do you know what Social Darwinism (http://www.ioa.com/%7Eshermis/socjus/socdar.html) is? It sure doesn't seem so from your answer.

And your exegesis of Revelation 1:20 is pure wack. What support do you offer for your interpretation of the seven churches, when Revelation chapters 2 & 3 list these as the churches at Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea?

So are you still planning to hand out copies of your Freudian translation in Jerusalem to the 144,000 "true" Christians (determined by you, David Judah Loeb)? It hope you have a good credit rating at Kinko's! :lol:

Do you consider yourself a "martyr" in the sense that our confusing friend Jack does?

R

[Jack777]

Well,

Judging by the responses from George and rogero I was right about a few things.

I answered and gave one response to the significance of the Creator being the reason people were willing to die. It seems goofy to moderns that Christians were willing to die for the Creator to you. Goofy example? I hardly think so.

I also said that there are other examples.

One of my objections to Theistic Evolution has just been demonstrated. Someone proposing to justify TE is not even aware of the Bible, thinks someone being martyred for the Creator and the One who revealed Him in a significant way is goofy.

I had made the statement

"I remember my preacher saying that believing Genesis 1:1 is the basis for everything that follows in the Bible. I did not quite know how to take it when he said that years ago, now I know what he meant or at least I think I am close to understanding.

The early Christians were martyred as much for not giving up the idea that God is the Creator as for anything else. Jews were martyred for this very same reason. While it is true that Christians believed Jesus is the Christ, it was not giving up on God as Creator that they were killed for."

I provided one example and there are many more.

The above was not a smokescreen. To say so reflects part of the absurdity of TE being validated as anything other than a belief system.

I will return in a day or two.

You might want to read Tertullian and many others if you think the Creator and the significance of Genesis 1:1 is not crucial.

Again thank, this is most instructive.

[George Murphy]

Well,

Judging by the responses from George and rogero I was right about a few things.

I answered and gave one response to the significance of the Creator being the reason people were willing to die. It seems goofy to moderns that Christians were willing to die for the Creator to you. Goofy example? I hardly think so.

I also said that there are other examples.

One of my objections to Theistic Evolution has just been demonstrated. Someone proposing to justify TE is not even aware of the Bible, thinks someone being martyred for the Creator and the One who revealed Him in a significant way is goofy.

I had made the statement

"I remember my preacher saying that believing Genesis 1:1 is the basis for everything that follows in the Bible. I did not quite know how to take it when he said that years ago, now I know what he meant or at least I think I am close to understanding.

The early Christians were martyred as much for not giving up the idea that God is the Creator as for anything else. Jews were martyred for this very same reason. While it is true that Christians believed Jesus is the Christ, it was not giving up on God as Creator that they were killed for."

I provided one example and there are many more.

The above was not a smokescreen. To say so reflects part of the absurdity of TE being validated as anything other than a belief system.

I will return in a day or two.

You might want to read Tertullian and many others if you think the Creator and the significance of Genesis 1:1 is not crucial.

Again thank, this is most instructive.Jack -

Please pay attention to what has actually been said. The issue is not whether it's "goofy" to be martyred for belief in creation. The question is rather whether anyone _has_ been martyred for belief in creation. The one supposed example you gave - St. Perpetua - fails to make your point because in the account of her marytrdom nothing at all is said about her belief in creation as a reason for her death. Undoubtedly she did believe the biblical accounts of creation but that isn't at issue. She was martyred because she admitted to being a Christian and refused to offer sacrifice.

This has nothing to do with the truth of the doctrine of creation (which of course I accept), the validity of evolutionary theory (which I also accept) or appropriate honors for St. Perpetua (which I try to accord by remembering her in prayer on March 7, the day she's commemorated in the church calendar.) It is also not a question of whether a Christian should be willing to accept martyrdom for the sake of belief in creation. It is simply an historical question of whether or not St. Perpetua's belief in creation was the reason she was executed by the Roman authorities. And there's no evidence that it was.

& that is the reason I labelled all the rest of your post a smokescreen. The points you raise there are legitimate subjects for discussion in other settings but have nothing to do with the "TE, Creation and Martyrs" topic which you introduced.

Can you not simply admit that you were wrong? You are simply going to make yourself look more & more foolish, even in the eyes of those who share your theological views, if you keep on stubbornly maintaining your claim about creation & martyrdom.

Shalom,
George

[Jack777]

Well, I did not expect to be back so soon, but let me clarify.

I have my stuff at home, so this is off the cuff. I will get around to a formal response as soon as I feel comfortable with it. I consider everyone on here precious (even people who may or may not seem so) and do not want to make stumbling.

Vibia Perpetua was a Christian living in Carthage.

In 202 A. D. Septimus Severus wiped out Irenaeus and thousands of his flock along with him.

Also many miles from Lyons (a city that Irenaeus is responsible in part for becoming Christian), Vibia was rounded up as you know.

Under the reign of Ptolemy I the cult of Osiris-Apis was moved from Memphis (not Tennessee) to Alexandria, the namesake of Alexander the Great. Alexander the Great was the son of Philip of Macedon. The Greeks considered the Macedonians to be barbarians and would not let them participate in the Olympic games. A genetic study has proven that the Macedonians are not closely related to the Greeks. Greeks are more genetically related to the sub-Saharans Africans than to any people group near them. I am sure you know why. Anyway, Alexander the Great studied under Aristotle and became a Greek by education and the rest as they say is history.

Osiris-Apis is an Egyptian god. Well, here is Ptolemy I running his part of the Greek Empire (Macedonian in a significant way as Ptolemy I was one of Alexander's leaders). The cult of Osiris was moved from Memphis to Alexandria because of Ptolemy I and it is significant as the different cities in Egypt jealously touted their particular patron gods and gave assent as well to the zillions of others in the pantheon. In other words, this cult had political significance and was "wedded" to the Greek gods of Zeus, Dionysius, Hades and a couple of others. The new god that came out of this political move was named Serapis. Nice trick, eh? So, zoom ahead to 202 A. D. and consider that Septimus Severus was a little twitchy about the manufactured god Serapis. He thought this not god was a real god and had a lot of stroke in The Underworld. Serapis came to be considered to be a god of the Underworld. The Egyptian and Greek gods had some similarities and rightly so, but that is a whole new can of worms. It has to do with migrations of ancient peoples, not whether or not they are real.

If you read the Bible, it starts off with Genesis 1:1 and that is not a coincidence. God knew what He was doing by starting it off like that. In short, the Creator and the Redeemer are the same, they are One. In Beginning, Elohiym created the heaven and the earth. The Leningrad Codex reveals that the word order is not the same as it is in English and the definite article is not there. One Hebrew grammarian noted that Be Reshiyth seems like a proper noun (I am not going into all of that proof here right now if ever). In Beginning created Elohiym the heaven (dual always as singular) and the earth. That Beginning is the pre-incarnate Christ, our Redeemer.

So, exactly Who is it that was incompetition with Serapis all of a sudden (in Severus' mind at least)?

If you read Tertullian, Athenagoras, Dionysus Bishop of Rome the apologies consist of Who do you think the Creator is. I suggested Eusebius as well, but there is more proof. I will post something on a web page.

Can't you see what I am saying?

The arguments of naturalism and even evolution have been around since before Christ and I can prove that too, but I cannot do the reading for you. I would not care too much about what science finds or does not find as it is only something made and under the continual Sovereignty of my Creator and the redeemer. Things go astray when the Theory of Evolution is put on a level with the Creator. Someone wondered how I can say that evolution is not evil. Whoever decides to introduce heterodoxy introduces evil however little, Remember the leaven spoiling the whole lump?

The Theory of Evolution as it stands takes the place that is God's. That is not the same thing as saying factual data is not true. That is one reason why I ask how much is belief and how much is fact? What is fact and what is belief is important to know.

[George Murphy]

Well, I did not expect to be back so soon, but let me clarify.

I have my stuff at home, so this is off the cuff. I will get around to a formal response as soon as I feel comfortable with it. I consider everyone on here precious (even people who may or may not seem so) and do not want to make stumbling.

Vibia Perpetua was a Christian living in Carthage.

......................................

If you read Tertullian, Athenagoras, Dionysus Bishop of Rome the apologies consist of Who do you think the Creator is. I suggested Eusebius as well, but there is more proof. I will post something on a web page.

Can't you see what I am saying?
......................................
Jack, I am going to try one more time & if you don't understand that I will leave you to talk to yourself. I really doubt that you are reading anything I write anyway.

The claim you made at the beginning of this thread was that Jews and Christians had been martyred for their belief in creation - i.e., I assume, that they were killed specifically because of their belief in the biblical teaching on creation. The only example you have cited, St. Perpetua, proves no such thing. Read "The Passion of the Holy Martyrs Perpetua and Felicitas" in Vol.III of The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Eerdmans, 1978 reprint), pp.699-706. (You can probably find it on the web too but I'm old fashioned.) You'll see that nothing at all is said there about belief in creation being one of the reasons for Perpetua's martyrdom.

That's it. All your stuff about Macedonians, the Leningrad Codex &c is utterly irrelevant to the point at issue.

Now say it: "I was wrong." We will actually respect you more for it. Admitting your error on this historical point in no way compromises your belief in creation or anything else. It just means you were wrong about one claim. We've all done that.

Shalom,
George

[kofh2u]

Hi jack777,

I understand your point.

You really are saying that earlier interpretations of Genesis have an investment in the particular paradigm of that moment. We ought honor our forefathers with the respect of accepting the same "take" on scripture as they held. We should remember that our cool and detacted logic and analysis is nothing, in comparision to their profound faith in their understanding, even unto death.

Inspite of the fact that it was not specifically for Creationism that they were martryed, they believed in the metaphysical transcence of God which is significant evidence of their belief in Him. Belief in the unknown and yet, unproven is faith.

I think your respect is admirable, and for the sake of argument, there ought be no insistance that people must denigrate the ancient and archaic view, especially if it is no stumbling block for them, themself.

Matt. 12:20 A bruised reed (of scriptural interpretion) shall he not
break, and smoking flax (of misguided dogma) shall he not quench, till (after) he send forth (good) judgment unto victory (in ecumenical amalgamation).


On the other hand, for those people who today are informed such as to require a more analogous relationship between secular fact and their hope to believe in a personal salvation, I believe your point ought be liberal enough, so be it, the interpretations do not become the focus of Faith. Our Faith is in Jesus and in the belief that he is truth. The truth you see, that people previously saw, and that we see today all have a common thread running through them. They each see the truth of scripture in the "language" of there own time and cultural paradigm.

Certainly, before Darwin, before genetics, before paleontology, and before this present Information Age the assumption of a rationale, even metaphysical, was demanded from the bible readers.

1Cor. 13:11 When I, (Modern Homo sapiens), was a child (in the Iron Age of Moses), I spake as a child, (and Torah likewise spoke to me), I understood (the realities of the Creation) as a child, I thought (in terms of myths, epics, and metaphysical ideas), as a child: but when I became a (21st Century) man (in the Age of Information), I put away childish things (even though many were traditional, from remote times).

Certainly the way this passage speaks to me, as specified by the bracketed comments, is far different than the way your detractors, here, see it. Certainly they are as open to the same criticism they heap on you.

The "pot" of the slowly emerging realization, that the kettle of fish stories dreamed up by mere mortals of yesteryears is beginning smell.

Rev. 3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold,... (the golden spiritual
insights of the irrepressible idea of psychic Consciousness emerging
from scripture)... tried in the fire...
(of time),... that thou mayest be rich...(in continued church leadership);
and (buy) white (yet unwritten pages), raiment...
(of revised books of your evermore obvious misinterpretations), ...that thou mayest be clothed...(and protected in thine thinking with secularly acceptable scriptural
confirmations), ...and that the shame... (as visited in Geocentricism, in Creationism, in literal world-wide floods, etc) ... of thy nakedness...(your unsupportable intuitive irrationalities) ...do not appear... (and confront you); ...and anoint thine eyes...(awaken!)... with (the) eyesalve...(reality!), ...that thou mayest see... (socio-psychologically).

[lucaspa]

Vibia Perpetua was a Christian living in Carthage.

In 202 A. D. Septimus Severus wiped out Irenaeus and thousands of his flock along with him.

Also many miles from Lyons (a city that Irenaeus is responsible in part for becoming Christian), Vibia was rounded up as you know.

Under the reign of Ptolemy I the cult of Osiris-Apis was moved from Memphis (not Tennessee) to Alexandria,...Osiris-Apis is an Egyptian god. ...The new god that came out of this political move was named Serapis. Nice trick, eh? So, zoom ahead to 202 A. D. and consider that Septimus Severus was a little twitchy about the manufactured god Serapis. He thought this not god was a real god and had a lot of stroke in The Underworld. Serapis came to be considered to be a god of the Underworld.

I put the relevant parts together, Jack. As you say, Septimus Severus didn't like Serapis. So what? What does that have to do with the martrydom of Vibia? After all, Vibia is rounded up in Lyons, France -- a long way from Alexandria and isn't a worshipper of Serapis. So what does all this have to do with your claim that Christians were killed for their belief in Creation?

If you read the Bible, it starts off with Genesis 1:1 and that is not a coincidence. God knew what He was doing by starting it off like that. If you look at the history, Genesis is a rather late addition to the Torah. The Bible started off with Exodus! Genesis is a later addition.

In short, the Creator and the Redeemer are the same, they are One. This is a belief within Christianity, but not linked to the sentence above. That is, starting the Torah off with Genesis does NOT establish God as Creator being one with God as Redeemer. After all, when the Torah was written, there was no Redeemer yet.

In Beginning, Elohiym created the heaven and the earth. The Leningrad Codex reveals that the word order is not the same as it is in English and the definite article is not there. One Hebrew grammarian noted that Be Reshiyth seems like a proper noun (I am not going into all of that proof here right now if ever). In Beginning created Elohiym the heaven (dual always as singular) and the earth. That Beginning is the pre-incarnate Christ, our Redeemer.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=07225&version=kjv does not indicate that re'shiyth is a proper noun. So the equation that "beginning" is a proper noun and equal to Christ doesn't work. It also contradicts the basic belief of Christianity as you stated it: Creator and Christ are one. Here you have Christ = Beginning, but the Beginning didn't create! Elohim created! So you have just thrown out a basic belief of Christianithy. Congratulations. In trying to save the village, you destroyed it.

BTW, did you know the Elohim is PLURAL in Hebrew for god? That is, Elohim = gods.

So, exactly Who is it that was incompetition with Serapis all of a sudden (in Severus' mind at least)?
This doesn't follow at all from your statements.
1. Serapis, you said, was a god of the underworld, not a creator.
2. You said Severus' didn't like Serapis. So, by your statements, Severus should have liked the competition.

Can't you see what I am saying? That you don't have a leg to stand on? Yes, that's pretty plain.

The arguments of naturalism and even evolution have been around since before Christ and I can prove that too,This has been tried before by other people. So far, they have failed miserably. But go ahead and try. You might cite the AiG and Hovind sites to save yourself time.

I would not care too much about what science finds or does not find as it is only something made and under the continual Sovereignty of my Creator and the redeemer.Why do you not then believe what God and Jesus are telling you about HOW God created thru what science finds in God's Creation? Of course, your god may be different than God.

Things go astray when the Theory of Evolution is put on a level with the Creator.Then fight what you want to fight -- naturalism and those who say that evolution shows God does not exist. Don't fight evolution, but those who misuse evolution. You'll find some unexpected allies if you do what you say you want to do.
"Saying that 'there is no purpose to life' is not a scientific statement. We are able to explain the world and its creatures using materialist, physical processes, but to claim that this then requires us to conclude that there is no purpose in nature steps beyond science into philosophy. One's students may or may not come to this conclusion on their own; in my opinion, for a nonreligious professor to interject his own philosophy into the classroom in this manner is as offensive as it would be for a fundamentalist professor to pass off his philosophy as science." Eugenie Scott in the essay Creationism in The Flight from Science and Reason, New York Academy of Sciences, volume 775, 1995, pg 519.

The Theory of Evolution as it stands takes the place that is God's.
Jack, detail EXACTLY what you think the "Theory of Evolution as it stands" is. Take a look at the first quote in my signature. How did McCosh understand evolution differently than "as it stands"?

That is not the same thing as saying factual data is not true. That is one reason why I ask how much is belief and how much is fact? What is fact and what is belief is important to know.
Yes, it is important to know what is fact and what is belief. Very important. Are you sure you are doing that for yourself? Because your belief that early Christians were martyred for their belief in Creation is that: belief and not knowledge.

So, let us wander thru what you think is evolution and separate out what is really evolution and what 1) you believe about evolution and 2) what may be misstated about evolution by some scientists.

[lucaspa]

1Cor. 13:11 When I, (Modern Homo sapiens), was a child (in the Iron Age of Moses), I spake as a child, (and Torah likewise spoke to me), I understood (the realities of the Creation) as a child, I thought (in terms of myths, epics, and metaphysical ideas), as a child: but when I became a (21st Century) man (in the Age of Information), I put away childish things (even though many were traditional, from remote times).

Certainly the way this passage speaks to me, as specified by the bracketed comments, is far different than the way your detractors, here, see it.

Mangling scripture again, I see. Paul is talking about how incompletely he sees GOD, but how complete that knowledge will be after his death and uniting with God. Let's go on to verse 12 "what we see now is like a dim image in a mirror, then we shall see face-to-face." What I know now is only partial,; then it will be complete -- as complete as God's knowledge of me." Yet you would take this beautiful statement of our future knowledge of God and twist it to mean something about the material world! What YOU want it to mean, not what Paul is saying. Just can't listen to what people, or God, are saying. What pride you have, to impose your meaning on Paul and then say "this passage speaks to me" when what you did was impose your meaning ON it.

The "pot" of the slowly emerging realization, that the kettle of fish stories dreamed up by mere mortals of yesteryears is beginning smell. Is this a reference to the supposed imminent demise of Darwinian evolution? Go to PubMed and check that out. You will see that the number of articles supporting evolution continues to INCREASE month by month. That is, there are more such articles in Jan 2005 than Dec. 2004 and more in Dec than there were in Nov. Strange behavior for something that "is beginning to smell".

[Jack777]

I wrote in my first post on this thread:


"The early Christians were martyred as much for not giving up the idea that God is the Creator as for anything else."

It is very clear that some do not want to understand. It is also very clear that some do not know what the Bible says. It is also clear that some do not accept Mosaic authorship of the Torah of the Bible.

I will post some examples but some have made my point once again. Some believe in the religion of evolution. Freedom of religion is a big thing in my country so have at it.

Heterodoxy does not work in Christianity. Pantheism does not work in Christianity. We know the Creator and the Redeemer are the same One.

How do you equate Creator with creation? Is that a Freudian slip?

[George Murphy]

I wrote in my first post on this thread:


"The early Christians were martyred as much for not giving up the idea that God is the Creator as for anything else."

It is very clear that some do not want to understand. It is also very clear that some do not know what the Bible says. It is also clear that some do not accept Mosaic authorship of the Torah of the Bible.

I will post some examples but some have made my point once again. Some believe in the religion of evolution. Freedom of religion is a big thing in my country so have at it.

Heterodoxy does not work in Christianity. Pantheism does not work in Christianity. We know the Creator and the Redeemer are the same One.

How do you equate Creator with creation? Is that a Freudian slip?People often say very loosely of an ignorant person, "He doesn't know what he's talking about." In your case I think it's literally true: You don't even understand the claims you yourself make, and thus can't understand (if you even try) why the arguments others present refute them. There is no more point in trying to carry on a conversation with you than there is with one of those dolls that utters canned phrases when you pull a string.

Shalom,
George

[Jack777]

Well, I admit to ignorance. However, I am still right.



The first quote by Eusebius of Irenaeus provides two witnesses to the fact that the Creator was of utmost importance.

Eusebius quotes Irenaeus' Book 4 of Against Heresies:


"Justin said it well in his treatise against Marcionthat

he would not have believed the Lord himself

if he had preached another god than the Creator"


Eusebius, Eusebius the Church History: A New Translation with Commentary, Translator and Commentator, Paul L. Meier, Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, Copyright 1999 Paul L. Meier, 1999.

articulus stantis vel cadentis ecclesiae:



"The classical creeds of Christendom opened with a declaration of belief in one God, maker of heaven and earth."



J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, Revised Edition, San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row Publishers, Copyright 1960, 1968, 1978 John Norman Davidson Kelly, 1978.


Tertullian was known as an expert on Roman law and he recorded that Tiberius "threatened any who accused the Christians." The Christians were subjected to harassment, torture, imprisonment, and execution. The people that the Christians lived among would take it upon themselves to persecute Christians. Eusebius notes that during this time of freedom from persecution that God ordained that the Good News be given a good start. According to Eusebius those chained by superstition and idolatry were set free,


"Rejecting demonic polytheism, they confessed the one God and Creator of the universe whom they honored with rational worship implanted by our Savior."
Eusebius, Eusebius the Church History: A New Translation with Commentary, Translator and Commentator, Paul L. Meier, Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, Copyright 1999 Paul L. Meier, 1999.




Only in the Bible does it state that God created everything ex nihilo."




Gleason Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, Chicago, IL: Moody Press, Copyright 1964, 1974, 1994; The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, 1994.


"So that the opinion of your philosophers and authors is discordant; for while the former have propounded the foregoing opinions, the poet Homer is found explaining the origin not only of the world, but also of the gods, on quite another hypothesis. For he says somewhere: -




'Father of gods, Oceanus, and she







Who bare the gods, their mother Tethys, too,







From whom all rivers spring, and every sea.'





In saying which, however, he does not present God to us. For who does not know that the ocean is water? But if water, then not God. God indeed, if He is the creator of all things, as He certainly is, is the creator both of the water and of the seas. And Hesiod himself also declared the origin, not only of the gods, but also of the world itself. And though he said that the world was created, he showed no inclination to tell us by whom it was created. Besides, he said that Saturn, and his sons Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto, were gods, though we find that they are later born than the world."


[font=Arial]Theophilus of Antioch




Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers:

all things were created by him, and for him:"


[/indent][/indent]Colossians 1:12-16
Not only did Jesus as the pre-incarnate Christ create the visible Universe but all the beings of the invisible world.

Paul states that the Universe is held together by Jesus Christ NOW.

This is a central point of opposition to the Theory of Evolution as it is understood by any Christian!

articulus stantis vel cadentis ecclesiae:


"And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."
Colossians 1:17


Irenaeus stated that he believed that God as is presented in the Bible is the Creator.

articulus stantis vel cadentis ecclesiae:


"God is the Father, increate, unengendered, invisible, one and only Deity, creator of the Universe."
Irenaeus


quoted in:

J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, Revised Edition, San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row Publishers, Copyright 1960, 1968, 1978 John Norman Davidson Kelly, 1978.


"These men falsify the oracles of God, and prove themselves evil interpreters of the good word of revelation. They also overthrow the faith of many, by drawing them away, under a pretense of [superior] knowledge, from Him who founded and adorned the universe; as if, forsooth, they had something more excellent and sublime to reveal, than that God who created the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein. By means of specious and plausible words, they cunningly allure the simple-minded to inquire into their system; but they nevertheless clumsily destroy them, while they initiate them into their blasphemous and impious opinions respecting the Demiurge; and these simple ones are unable, even in such a matter, to distinguish falsehood from truth.


Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced (ridiculous as the expression may seem) more true than the truth itself."


Against Heresies


Irenaeus

A. Cleveland Coxe, Editor of the American Edition, "Irenaeus Against Heresies", in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1, Editors A. Roberts and J. Donaldson, Master Christian Library Edition, Albany, OR: AGES Software Version 2.0, Copyright 1997 Ages Software, 1997.


</P>

[rogero]

Well, I admit to ignorance. However, I am still right....

What an ignoramus you are Jack! If you admit to ignorance, how can you still be right, or more importantly how can you know that you are right?

It's idiots like you that are driving me further and further from Christianity. Are you proud of yourself?

R

[George Murphy]

Well, I admit to ignorance. However, I am still right.



The first quote by Eusebius of Irenaeus provides two witnesses to the fact that the Creator was of utmost importance.

I said I wasn't going to try to converse with you any further but find it hard to resist here. The question was not whether creation is an important part of Christian faith - which of course it is - but whether anyone had been martyred for it. Are you really unable even to understand what you say?

Shalom,
George

[kofh2u]

Mangling scripture again, I see. Paul is talking about how incompletely he sees GOD, but how complete that knowledge will be after his death and uniting with God. Let's go on to verse 12 "what we see now is like a dim image in a mirror, then we shall see face-to-face." What I know now is only partial,; then it will be complete -- as complete as God's knowledge of me." Yet you would take this beautiful statement of our future knowledge of God and twist it to mean something about the material world! What YOU want it to mean, not what Paul is saying. Just can't listen to what people, or God, are saying. What pride you have, to impose your meaning on Paul and then say "this passage speaks to me" when what you did was impose your meaning ON it.

Is this a reference to the supposed imminent demise of Darwinian evolution? Go to PubMed and check that out. You will see that the number of articles supporting evolution continues to INCREASE month by month. That is, there are more such articles in Jan 2005 than Dec. 2004 and more in Dec than there were in Nov. Strange behavior for something that "is beginning to smell".


1) You ask:
"Is this a reference to the supposed imminent demise of Darwinian evolution?"

No. I am convinced that evolutuion IS the subtle foundation for all that is written in Genesis.

I amcertain I go way beyond yourself in this. Certainly you will find much to criticize in what I post, but it ought be diametrically opposite from the mind-set you evidence in misreading me with the above quote.

Gen. 4:1 And Adam (Ramaphitecus Man) knew Eve (mother of all hominoids) his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain (Ardipithecus ramidus), and said, I have gotten a man, (another hominoid), from the LORD.

Gen. 4:2 And she again bare his brother, (Lucy), Abel
(Australopithecus afarensis). And Abel (was carnivorous,) was a keeper of sheep, but Cain (a vegeterian,) was a tiller of the ground.

2) 1Co12?

I agree with you concerning the beauty of 1Co.

I applaud the insight of what is said.

I recognize that scripture is a living Word, it smoothly flows from early misconceived patadigms into the maturing evolution of humannunderstanding.

1Co 12 is contextually part of my previous post:

1Cor. 13:12 For now (in this 1st Century) we see (in (semi-consciousness) as through a glass, darkly, (we perceive as well as our growing knowledge allows); but then, (in the coming time of Daniel, in the Information Age of the 21st Century), face to face (with secular understanding and Truthof God): now I know (both God and his Truth) in part; but then shall I know (tangibly) even as also I am known (concretely).

[lucaspa]

I wrote in my first post on this thread:


"The early Christians were martyred as much for not giving up the idea that God is the Creator as for anything else."

It is very clear that some do not want to understand.
It's very clear that the early Christians were not killed for this reason. What you need is documentation that early Christians were asked to deny God as Creator by the Romans. Instead, they were asked to give up belief in Jesus as the Christ.

It is also very clear that some do not know what the Bible says. It is also clear that some do not accept Mosaic authorship of the Torah of the Bible.
Look at Chapter 34 of Deuteronomy (book 5 of the Torah). Please tell me how Moses could have written that chapter.

Some believe in the religion of evolution.
Please define for us what is "the religion of evolution". Give its basic statements and creeds.

I asked this before, Jack. I'll ask it again. Please answer so we can understand what you are trying to say:
Jack, detail EXACTLY what you think the "Theory of Evolution as it stands" is. Take a look at the first quote in my signature. How did McCosh understand evolution differently than "as it stands"?

How do you equate Creator with creation?
I don't think any of those questioning you have done this. Instead, the claim is that God really did create. Therefore Creation is something done directly by God. Creation is a book BY God. Directly authored by God, not even dictated as you claim God dictated to Moses. Therefore, we can read Creation via science and find out HOW God created. What's so difficult to understand about this? Don't you believe that God created?

Heterodoxy does not work in Christianity. Pantheism does not work in Christianity. We know the Creator and the Redeemer are the same One.
Which is why YEC is HERESY! YEC has separated the Creator and the Redeemer.

"In the final issue I would like to address the question of out-and-out heresy, potentially the destruction of the whole Christian enterprise through the ham-handed activities of well-intentioned but historically and theologically illiterate Christians. In the "Findings of Fact" filed by the Defendants in the Arkansas Case prior to adjudication, a truly deplorable statement was asserted in paragraph 35: 'Creation-science does presuppose the existence of a creator, to the same degree that evolution-science presupposes the existence of no creator. As used in the context of creation-science, as defined by 54(a) [sic]of Act 590, the terms or concepts of "creation" and "creator" are not inherently religious terms or concepts. In this sense, the term "creator" means only some entity with power, intelligence, and a sense of design. Creation-science does not require a creator who has a personality, who has the attributes of love, compassion, justice, etc., which are ordinarily attributed to a deity. Indeed, the creation-science model does not require that the creator still be in existence."
It would be hard to set emotional priorities, from bitter sorrow to deep anger, which this wretched formulation and its obvious and cynical compromise with mammon should evoke in any sensitive theological soul. Let us say nothing about the hypocrisy of good people who have obviously convinced themselves that a good cause can be supported by any mendacious and specious means whatsoever. The passage is perverse, however, not only because it says things that are untrue, namely that creationism presupposes a creator whereas evolutionism necessarily does not, and not only because 'creation' and 'creator' are proffered speciously secular, nonreligious definitions.
The worst thing about these unthinking and unhistorical formulations is what Langdon Gilkey pointed out at the Arkansas trial in December of 1981. The concept of a creator God distinct from the God of love and mercy is a reopening of the way to the Marcionist and Gnostic heresies, among the deadliest ever to afflict Christianity. That those who make such formulations do not seriously intend them save as a debating ploy does not mitigate their essential malevolence." Bruce Vawter, "Creationism: creative misuse of the Bible" in Is God a Creationist? Ed. by Roland Frye, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1983 pp 81-82.

Still want to stick to creationism, Jack? You say the Creator and Redeemer are one. Creationism, both YEC and ID, say otherwise.

[lucaspa]

The first quote by Eusebius of Irenaeus provides two witnesses to the fact that the Creator was of utmost importance.

Eusebius quotes Irenaeus' Book 4 of Against Heresies:


[indent]"Justin said it well in his treatise against Marcion that

he would not have believed the Lord himself

if he had preached another god than the Creator"

Jack, what you have shown is a controversy WITHIN the early Church. Some Christians were Marcionists, separating God as Creator from God as Jesus. However, you must remember that the Marcionists were ALSO martyred by the Romans. This negates your claim that Christians were martyred for believing God as Creator.

Jack, REMEMBER THE CLAIMS. ALWAYS remember the claims. Arguments are about SPECIFIC claims. You claimed that Christians were martyred because they believed God as Creator. No. They were martyred for believing in Yahweh and Jesus Christ. The whole package, not just because Yahweh created.

Now, look at Eusebius and what I posted about creation science (YEC) in the previous post. You can see that YEC is repeating the Marcionist heresy and denying what Ireneaus and Eusebius proclaim as the truth.

So, since creationism denies that the Creator and Redeemer are one, why do you continue to be a creationist?

"The classical creeds of Christendom opened with a declaration of belief in one God, maker of heaven and earth." Yes, they did. But both creeds were put in place AFTER the period of persecution. Also, the creeds do not specify HOW God created. So God creating by the processes you lump under "evolution" fits the creeds.


"Rejecting demonic polytheism, they confessed the one God and Creator of the universe whom they honored with rational worship implanted by our Savior."
Eusebius, [i]Eusebius the Church History: A New Translation with Commentary, Translator and Commentator, Paul L. Meier, Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, Copyright 1999 Paul L. Meier, 1999.
That's fine, but IT'S NOT YOUR ORIGINAL CLAIM!

Once you realize that arguments are framed in particular claims, then you can admit that the claim was in error and move on.


"Only in the Bible does it state that God created everything ex nihilo." Actually, that is a later Christian belief. Christians have also noted that "the waters" were preexisting -- God only parted them, not created them -- and thus it is unclear whether Genesis 1 is completely creation ex nihilo.

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:" Colossians 1:12-16 Here is where you get Paul asserting complete creation ex nihilo. Of course, Paul is denying the plain reading of Genesis 1:2, but what the heck, right? You aren't committed to a plain reading of Genesis 1, are you?

Paul states that the Universe is held together by Jesus Christ NOW.

This is a central point of opposition to the Theory of Evolution as it is understood by any Christian!
Where? Where does evolution deny that God sustains the universe?

Jack, the following quote is in the Fontispiece to the Origin of the Species. It specifically states that the universe is held together by God, just what Paul states!

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

Jack, this is why I keep asking you what exactly you think the theory of evolution IS. Because what you say evolution is is NOT what I find evolution that evolution is.

"These men falsify the oracles of God, and prove themselves evil interpreters of the good word of revelation. They also overthrow the faith of many, by drawing them away, under a pretense of [superior] knowledge, from Him who founded and adorned the universe; as if, forsooth, they had something more excellent and sublime to reveal, than that God who created the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein. By means of specious and plausible words, they cunningly allure the simple-minded to inquire into their system; but they nevertheless clumsily destroy them, while they initiate them into their blasphemous and impious opinions respecting the Demiurge; and these simple ones are unable, even in such a matter, to distinguish falsehood from truth.


Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced (ridiculous as the expression may seem) more true than the truth itself."
Again, you have demonstrated the internal fighting WITHIN Christianity and that Christianity insisted on making God the Creator and Christ be one. But you have NOT demonstrated that the Romans killed Christians specifically for their beliefs about Yahweh as Creator. REMEMBER THE CLAIM!

[Jack777]

No it was not a fight within the church. There are plenty who claim to be Christians much as if giving intellectual assent. Gnostics were not Christians. Sheesh...

The Body of Christ is not a specific place, its us.

My point is that the Creator is what people held as proof of Faith. They died for it.

[Mercury]

My point is that the Creator is what people held as proof of Faith. They died for it.Even if you provided evidence that numerous martyrs died for their belief in the Creator aspect of God rather than other aspects of God's nature, that still would not have anything to do with TE. Christian YECs, OECs and TEs all affirm that God is the creator of the universe.

[kofh2u]

Even if you provided evidence that numerous martyrs died for their belief in the Creator aspect of God rather than other aspects of God's nature, that still would not have anything to do with TE. Christian YECs, OECs and TEs all affirm that God is the creator of the universe.

Very mercuric observation.

I take issue with people who shout, "Heresy" at differences in interpretation. Jack777 certainly is among the Christian body which has oil in their lamp, probably used well into many an evening hold hands on the Lord, his WORD studied and contemplated.

Jack777 gets my congradulations for sincerity and empathy as regards comments striking at his integrity and/or intelligence. In my opinion, he is entitled to his, and differences to the contrary, he ends with the assumption, in Christ.

Remember, the whole congregation of his local synagogue chased Jesus out and hoped to tar/feather him if possible, just after he interpreted these verses:

Isa. 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me, (Jesus), to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

Isa. 61:2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, (32AD), and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;

[rogero]

Very mercuric observation.

I take issue with people who shout, "Heresy" at differences in interpretation. Jack777 certainly is among the Christian body which has oil in their lamp, probably used well into many an evening hold hands on the Lord, his WORD studied and contemplated.

Jack777 gets my congradulations (sic) for sincerity and empathy as regards comments striking at his integrity and/or intelligence. In my opinion, he is entitled to his, and differences to the contrary, he ends with the assumption, in Christ.

Remember, the whole congregation of his local synagogue chased Jesus out and hoped to tar/feather him if possible, just after he interpreted these verses:

Isa. 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me, (Jesus), to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

Isa. 61:2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, (32AD), and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
Koffy, did you forget that you are also an advocate of TE? Jack in the OP is the one accusing TEs of a heresy by somehow (and I wish he would come right out and explain this clearly) associating them with the people who killed some of the early church martyrs, or that somehow TEs are sell-outs to a secular worldview who would not stand and die for their belief in Creation --- I really don't know what Jack is trying to do, and I wish he would explain his idea clearly.

Qophy, perhaps you need to explain why your psychobabble interpretation of Scripture is not heretical? You've made insinuations about only 144,000 people being "true Christians" and in posts of months ago you've insinuated that you and your "Freudian Bible" have some close relation to eschatology.

Perhaps you should stop disrupting and misdirecting threads with your confusing ramblings? And why are you kissing up to Jack? He does NOT share you point of view on Origins. Maybe you think he's one of the 144K "true believers", huh?

And you seemed to be diss-ing Mercury's post, which was excellent and comes right to point of dispute of the thread, that Christian TEs believe in the same Creator as all other Christians. If any group is being accused of heresy, it's the TEs by Jack -- and this is IMHO purely shameful.



Even if you provided evidence that numerous martyrs died for their belief in the Creator aspect of God rather than other aspects of God's nature, that still would not have anything to do with TE. Christian YECs, OECs and TEs all affirm that God is the creator of the universe.

Thanks, Mercury!

R

[kofh2u]

rogero:
Koffy, did you forget that you are also an advocate of TE?

KOFHY:
No. I am TE, all the way thru... to include the bible verses that support the emerging Human Conscious, the facility of Free Will, right thru Genesis 11, which explains the basis for the MBTT,... and ultimately, to the identification of the "evil spirits" in Modern Homo sapiens, who thereafter becomes the new creature in God.

1) Lucifer = The Pleasure Principle = Id
2) Satan = Physical Drives = Libido
3) Mammon = The Aggressive Drive = Ego
4) Devil = Feminine principle of Intuition = Anima
5) Baalzebub = The Reality Principle = Self
6) False Prophet = The Logical/Mathematical Mind = Superego
7) False Shepherd = Psychic Balance = Harmony

Rev. 1:16 And he, (The Good Shepherd), had in his right hand seven stars, (the sevenfold
spirit of the psyche: Id, Libido, Ego, Anima, Self, Harmony, Superego):

8) The Good Shepherd = Brotherliness = Conscience


I'm just saying, Jack777 is "saved" by his faith in Truth, the Lord and Christ. So, I say be tolerant and accepting, while you "educate" him.

That's all:

Matt. 12:20 A bruised reed (of scriptural interpretion) shall he not
break, and smoking flax (of misguided dogma) shall he not quench, till (after) he send forth (good) judgment unto victory (in ecumenical amalgamation).

[lucaspa]

No it was not a fight within the church. There are plenty who claim to be Christians much as if giving intellectual assent. Gnostics were not Christians. Sheesh...
At the time, yes, they were. It was only after a long discussion that it was decided that Gnosticism was a wrong idea. What you are doing is retrodicting the end result back to the beginning. You can't do that.

Yes, there are some today claiming to be Christians but aren't. Biblical literal Fundamentalists.

The Body of Christ is not a specific place, its us. What does this have to do with anything? "The Body of Christ" is a metaphor usually referring to the Church.

My point is that the Creator is what people held as proof of Faith. They died for it.Then the point is still wrong. What they held as proof of faith was the resurrected Jesus. They died for their refusal to give up Jesus Christ. After all, they could have renounced Jesus and become Jews -- holding Yahweh as Creator -- and been spared by the Romans. The Romans weren't putting Jews to death! No, it was the faith in Jesus Christ that they died for.

[Jack777]

Really you need to read Church history. It is inconceivable that you could read it and not know why people were martyred. The only thing I can reckon is that you are repeating what you have been taught.

Paul, John, and Jude warned against Gnosticism and I think I even cited Lightfoot who gives an excellent analysis of the relationships. They called Gnosticism doctrine of the spirit of anti-Christ and responsible for wrecking people's Faith. Peter warned that people take the Scriptures for their own destruction. It was never an in-house battle. I also cite Harold O. J. Brown. If you refuse to believe obvious things from Scripture and workers that study these things, you will believe a lie, that is all.

Biblical Fundamentalists, literalists are Christians. You should understand what each separate word in that definition means. Again, you seem to have been subject to propaganda.

The Body of Christ became a metaphor for the organized religion called Christianity. The Body of Christ is people, or do you believer your trainers more than the Word of God?

They understood that Jesus is the Creator and the Redeemer. They apparently understood the Faith better than most moderns. Read books that give the history of the early Ekklesia.

TE is a loose term and it seems no one is able to tighten it up or define it. Another reason to be opposed to it.

In the countryside of rural America, they have a saying. They would not buy a pig in a poke. TE is a pig in a poke.

[George Murphy]

TE is a loose term and it seems no one is able to tighten it up or define it. Another reason to be opposed to it.From this barrage of quarter-truths it's worth selecting this & commenting. "Theistic evolution" is a term that a lot of people who are labelled with it - including myself - aren't terribly happy with, & that for several reasons. One is that it reduces God's role to an adjectival one. Another is that it gives no indication of who the theos in question is, so that it includes philosophical theists, Christians, Muslims &c. That's why when we had a symposium on the topic at the annual ASA meeting a few years ago we didn't call it "Theistic Evolution" but "Evolution as a Work of the Trinity."

However, it becomes difficult after awhile to change established terminology even if it's less than adequate. (A few years ago Sky & Telescope had a contest to get a replacement for the term "big bang." I don't know what won but I know what everybody still calls it - the big bang.) So as a sort of shorthand or slang we have to make do with TE in a preliminary way & be prepared to explain our positions more fully.

Unfortunately this will make no difference to folks like Jack who won't read statements by "theistic evolutionists" with any care but will dismiss them unheard because they think that one has to make a choice between creation & evolution.

Shalom,
George

[Jack777]

I do not think there is a choice between theism and evolution. Theism has had evolutionary ideas for a long time. It is called naturalism, materialism, and things like that.


I know that part of evolution requires belief. Some of the theory is wrong. Odd that wedding a theory that supports a religious belief other than Christianity is soooo important. Heterodoxy is something not so good. Do you see?

[rogero]

I do not think there is a choice between theism and evolution. Theism has had evolutionary ideas for a long time. It is called naturalism, materialism, and things like that.


I know that part of evolution requires belief. Some of the theory is wrong. Odd that wedding a theory that supports a religious belief other than Christianity is soooo important. Heterodoxy is something not so good. Do you see? Maybe you will realize sooner or later that -- perhaps -- your view of origins is heterodox? Your anti-evolutionary view contradicts clear anatomical, molecular, and paleontogical data left behind (presumably for a theist) for people to study. Do you think it is heterodox to make God a deceiver in the physical record of Creation?

And, there are theologically consistent points of view with regard to Scriptural interpretation of an ancient Earth and Cosmos and origin of species via evolution. Again, Glenn and George have interesting interpretative paradigms for this -- certainly lots more interesting (and consistent) than your rambling, one-dimensional fideism.

In fact, I don't see you giving an interpretation at all. I've asked this before, and I will continue to ask it of you until I get an answer. What is your explanation of the state of change of the biosphere that has, according to your admission, existed for over a billion years? Was it static over that time? Only changes within "kinds" -- whatever those are? Do you believe there were periodic total extinctions (somewhere you mentioned major meteor impacts every 100Ma) followed by recreations by divine fiat? Please, please, let us know what your view is!!

R


P.S. Just a reminder, Jack -- Christian TEs believe in the same Creator God as you do -- the Logos of John 1.

[kofh2u]

I do not think there is a choice between theism and evolution. Theism has had evolutionary ideas for a long time. It is called naturalism, materialism, and things like that.


I know that part of evolution requires belief. Some of the theory is wrong. Odd that wedding a theory that supports a religious belief other than Christianity is soooo important. Heterodoxy is something not so good. Do you see?

Your way of understanding scripture has lead you to accept Christ. For you, that is enough.

There is no test on doctrines, no true or false entrance exams at the gates. We are all saved by grace, alone.

The Age of Enlightenment ushered in Protestantism. The Catholicism of 1000 years had held to the world according to Aristotle/Plato.
The Age of Reason retired from dominance, but rational thinking is still with us.

It isn't that rational minds were wrong, exactly.

Rational minds made as much sense as possible, about the way the world worked. They explained the unknowns with a "sort of" science perspective. What they did by such efforts was called metaphysics. Metaphysics is the system of explaining things such as the explanation is acceptable to the moment. Metaphysics was an improvement over mythological explanations. But, metaphysics, in our age, is unacceptable.

Physics is the essence of our present paradigm. We understand the world scientifically. Our science is still subject to a degree of rationalism, nevertheless. Physics adds onto our understandings of the truth about the world, replacing some wrong ideas while explaining and confirming many old truths.

Great opportunity is coming for young people who believe that scripture is truth. They believe that the Bible has been well ahead of the belated arrival of this Information Age. And, the Information Age brings opportunity to develop new and different media to communicate the Word in terms of the emerging paradigm that fuels this "evolution" into our new age.

We are thinking much different than people in the 20th Century. We are communicating differently. We are in the new age, the Information Age, which is a time when knowledge is wide spread and generally available to almost every single person. An incident in the News is heard around the globe, like lightning streaking from the east to the west.

In this new age environment, a physics interpretation will replace a metaphysical Bible interpretation. There is, and will continue to be, an ever growing opportunity for this present generation to "sing a new song," one different from the musically acvompliments of the past.

The ancient song of Moses will be accompanied by, if not replaced with, a different way of explaining the same thing. The new song will be a science grounded interpretation of scripture that supports the basics which all ages understood. But, it will enhance, enlarge, and widen that understanding. In the limited sense by which science accomplishes such things, the new song will sing "proof" of what has long been believed.

This new breed of ministers will have recognized the words to this song, and they will merely play a tune that their own generation can accept. They will play their music on the internet, and they will congregate, not in sterile buildings, but in community activism.

First, these people need to hear the new song themselves. That song is being played more and more. The name of the new song is Theistic Evolution.

Check around the web, search out this new truth. Then, preach the gospel in this new language.

The time of Truth has come:

Dan. 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words (of the Old Testament), and seal the book (read by many concerned with death and hell), even to (2K4AD), the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, (traveling freely by land, sea, and even air), and knowledge (in the Information Age) shall be increased.

[Jack777]

Hmmm, I see that what I am trying to get across is not taking.

[rogero]

Hmmm, I see that what I am trying to get across is not taking. Hmmm, at least you got that right, son! :wink:

P.S. Perhaps you could try to give a cogent response to Kofh2u? His "brilliant" exposition of Scripture could really benefit from your wisdom. I hope you don't think that all TEs ascribe to the same Biblical hermeneutic as Kofhy. :blush:

[kofh2u]

Hmmm, I see that what I am trying to get across is not taking.



Jack, don't be so hard on yourself!

You have done and excellent job.
Many non-posters no doubt recognize in your posts things they never verbalized, but which they realize is there own take on scripture.

Lower your expectations.

Here on Tweb, not one person has ever submitted or changed his original perspectives. Most adamantly insisting at every turn they are still correct. This is as we ought expect.

What we are doing here is banging out the dents, and adjusting our own proclamations of the gospel truth as we understand it. We see what is said against our positions. We counter as best we might. These adjustments are useful in helping each person respond to other views. It has always been this way.

In certain times, the free expression we have now has been restricted. Some times, more than others. In this Information Age, it is the next generation to whom you speak, and I.

People, here, who have read and found they agree with how you have been fielding responses will use much of it. The real audience is not the naysayers or the scoffers, or those who ridicule you. Such behavior are a blessing to you. You KNOW you have a degree of validity or you would get the distain of no response.

Fear acceptance.

The world is changing and the next audience is both world-wide and educated. Church membership is in decline. Secularism is mounting ve y agressive attacks against metaphysical, unfounded ideas.
Tradition, respect, loyalty, stonewalling by church leaders will not overcome the forces against organized, politically active, culturally different religion.

What you believe is an acceptable "pitch" of Christianity to the young people who have not yet actualized will be measured not by the "old men" opposing you here. As in your own generation, many will deny God, many will ignor scripture totally. Many will congregate perfunctorily. And, many will hear you, me, others, Catholics, denominational Protestants, and other traditional understanding.

Evaluate yourself by how well you think that now absent audience will resoond to what you are saying. And, inspite of personal remarks and ridicule, consider the source to be the competition, not the trial and judge of your case. They themselves criticize you, but their own views are full of holes.

Stay with us.

I wonder how your "brand" will explain to the next generation many things:

Will a miracle arrive that eliminates death?
Will pain actually disappear?
Will God dwell with us?
Will all the world go to tabernacle in Israel?
Is the "new song" a different scriptural interpretation that will be "sung" as doctrine of the faith?
Will men be changed in a twinkling?

Floods,arks, impossible emigrations, sons of God marrying daughters of common men, four faced cherubims, urim and thummim, hidden manna, a new language, so much that must be incorporated into your philosophy, for these things are consequental to TE.




Rev. 1:17 And when I saw him, (becoming aware of this psychic entity within myself), I fell (as in an uncontrollable psychic episode) at his feet, (prostrate) as dead. And, he laid his right hand, (holding all the seven stars of my Freudian archetypal psyche) upon me: saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first, (the macrocosms, the external Universe), and the last, (the Homoiousios mental image of it's abstraction within):

[Jack777]

I wanted to think a bit about what you posted, kofu2. Thank you for your support and encouragement. Odd that people are so resistant to the witness of God and His Revelation to us in the Bible.

[rogero]

I wanted to think a bit about what you posted, kofu2. Thank you for your support and encouragement. Odd that people are so resistant to the witness of God and His Revelation to us in the Bible.
And just who would those people be? TEs perhaps? If so, this another slanderous Jack crack.

R

[lucaspa]

Really you need to read Church history. It is inconceivable that you could read it and not know why people were martyred. The only thing I can reckon is that you are repeating what you have been taught.
Jack, this is just denial without evidence or argument. We have refuted your arguments that early Christians were martyred for their beliefs in Creation. They were martyred for their belief in Jesus Christ and personal salvation. So far, you have presented no evidence that has withstood scrutiny for the claim. Looking at what you wrote above, it appears that you are trying to project your failings onto us. Several times we have pointed out that your examples of Church history do not say what you claimed. Therefore, it appears that 1) you don't know why people were martyred and 2) are ignorant of Church history.

Paul, John, and Jude warned against Gnosticism
Where? Which verses?

It was never an in-house battle.
I think you should read some of the Gnostic writings you will find on this site: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gnostics.html For instance, The Gospel of Thomas (one of the few surviving non-canonical gospels) has a lot of Gnostic influence. That alone shows that Gnosticism was an "in-house" battle within Christianity. Remember, Gnosticism is a Christian heresy.

I also cite Harold O. J. Brown.
Where? What exactly of Brown do you cite?

Biblical Fundamentalists, literalists are Christians.
They say they are, but I disagree. They are no longer Christians but instead worship a false idol -- a literal Bible -- of their own manufacture.

The Body of Christ became a metaphor for the organized religion called Christianity. The Body of Christ is people, or do you believer your trainers more than the Word of God?
Yes, I already said that "body of Christ" is metaphor for the Church. What exactly do you mean by "Word of God"? I know what John 1 means by it, but what do you mean by it?

TE is a loose term and it seems no one is able to tighten it up or define it. Another reason to be opposed to it.
TE is very easily defined. TE is the belief that God created using the processes lumped together as "evolution". See the first quote in my signature.

If the inability to define a term is reason to oppose it, then "kind" as used by creationists needs to be opposed. After all, no creationist has been able to define "kind". Yet it is a Biblical term! So that means you must oppose the Bible. Nice box you put yourself in.

In the countryside of rural America, they have a saying. They would not buy a pig in a poke. TE is a pig in a poke.Wny? Because you don't know the definition? Or because you have forgotten the entire concept of God sustaining the universe?

Better TE than the heresy that is YEC. You have never addressed the problem of the heresy of YEC, have you, Jack? Think we forgot?

[lucaspa]

I do not think there is a choice between theism and evolution. Theism has had evolutionary ideas for a long time. It is called naturalism, materialism, and things like that.
???? Jack, please explain the role of naturalism and materialism in theism. Most creationists accuse evolution of being "naturalism" and therefore not being theistic! See Willowtree's posts. So you can see my confusion here. Willowtree and Captain Ochre claim that evolution is not theistic because it is naturalism. You say that theism has had evolutionary ideas because of naturalism? That's contradictory.

I know that part of evolution requires belief.
Which part?

Some of the theory is wrong.
What part is wrong?

Odd that wedding a theory that supports a religious belief other than Christianity is soooo important. Heterodoxy is something not so good. Do you see? Can you please expand on this? I'm afraid I do not understand. What "wedding a theory that supports a religious belief other than Christianity"? What theory? What religious belief? Please be more specific so we can understand what you are trying to say.

[lucaspa]

From this barrage of quarter-truths it's worth selecting this & commenting. "Theistic evolution" is a term that a lot of people who are labelled with it - including myself - aren't terribly happy with, & that for several reasons. One is that it reduces God's role to an adjectival one. Another is that it gives no indication of who the theos in question is, so that it includes philosophical theists, Christians, Muslims &c. That's why when we had a symposium on the topic at the annual ASA meeting a few years ago we didn't call it "Theistic Evolution" but "Evolution as a Work of the Trinity."
You don't like the term TE because "theistic" is the adjective??? You've got to be kidding. And you are upset because "theistic" could include Muslims, Hindus, Jews, etc? So much for tolerance.

Unfortunately this will make no difference to folks like Jack who won't read statements by "theistic evolutionists" with any care but will dismiss them unheard because they think that one has to make a choice between creation & evolution. Yes, unfortunately creationists have made a tragic logical error: if God did not create according to their reading of the Bible, then God did not create. The non sequitor is obvious, but somehow goes unnoticed by creationism.

The inability to notice the non sequitor is one reason that I have concluded that the Biblical literalism underlying creationism is no longer Christianity. IMO, the only reason to ignore the non-sequitor is if the literal Bible has become a god and evolution thus contradicts that god. Then the non-sequitor is no longer a non-sequitor.

[lucaspa]

Hmmm, I see that what I am trying to get across is not taking.Only because the evidence contradicts it. Under those circumstances, you should be happy that what you are trying to say is not taking. You wouldn't want to lead people into error, would you, Jack?

[lucaspa]

No. I am TE, all the way thru... to include the bible verses that support the emerging Human Conscious, the facility of Free Will, right thru Genesis 11, which explains the basis for the MBTT,... and ultimately, to the identification of the "evil spirits" in Modern Homo sapiens, who thereafter becomes the new creature in God.

1) Lucifer = The Pleasure Principle = Id
2) Satan = Physical Drives = Libido
3) Mammon = The Aggressive Drive = Ego
4) Devil = Feminine principle of Intuition = Anima
5) Baalzebub = The Reality Principle = Self
6) False Prophet = The Logical/Mathematical Mind = Superego
7) False Shepherd = Psychic Balance = Harmony
1. Doesn't Lucifer = Satan = Mammon = Devil = Baalzebub? That is, they are all different words for the same entity. However, you have them being separate entities. How do you justify that Biblically?
2. In Freud's terminology, the Superego is our conscience = what we know is moral and ethical. Not "Logical/mathematical".

Rev. 1:16 And he, (The Good Shepherd), had in his right hand seven stars, (the sevenfold
spirit of the psyche: Id, Libido, Ego, Anima, Self, Harmony, Superego):
1. No chance the "seven stars" are not the "seven churches" mentioned in 1:11?
2. The "he" in Rev. 1:16 refers to "one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden girdle round his breast" in Rev. 1:13. NOT "The Good Shephberd"

Your ability to change scripture to fit your imagination continues to boggle the mind. Are you really expecting us to ignore scripture and instead take your words?

I'm just saying, Jack777 is "saved" by his faith in Truth, the Lord and Christ.
Ah, but does Jack have faith in "Truth"? As I keep pointing out, Jack consistently ignores God in His Creation. So he is ignoring at least half of Truth. Also, since Jack places his faith in his literal intepretation of the Bible, does he still have faith in the Lord and Christ? I have pointed out twice that creationism based on a literal reading of the Bible is heresy. So, we have to ask whether Jack777 can be saved while following a heresy. Jack claims that the Gnosticism, because it is a heresy, lies outside Christianity. Which means that heretics, by his own logic, would not be having faith in Christ.

[Jack777]

Funny stuf lucaspa, weak but funny.

[kofh2u]

lusca,
KOFHY:
I'm just saying, Jack777 is "saved" by his faith in Truth, the Lord and Christ.

Lusca:
Ah, but does Jack have faith in "Truth"?

KOFHY:
Certainly.

The entire middle ages was full of truly saved Christians who innocently were required by the socio-cultural paradigm of there day to believe just as does Jack777.

And, for all the TE adjustments to the traditional, ancient doctrines few are ready to apply the TE hypothesis throughout scripture, willing avoiding reconsideration of original sin, unbelievable life spans, unprovable floods, impossible ark logistics, etc.

Yheir theories can not rationally support life without death. The absence of pain in man. Nor does their philosophy propose a scientifically rational life after death.

However, even with the key to the kingdom of scripture in this TE, they refuse to enter into this next step of interpretation. And, as the supposedly Orthodox Christians insist, they refuse to let anyone else raise the subject.

Ridicule, absence of a big brother approach in talking to Jack, scorn, and charges against him of insanity and absurdity are what is unchristian and so clearly reminescent of how "they" treated "Elijah."

When his friends heard what was happening they came to try to take him home with them. "He's out of his mind," they said.
Mark 3:21 The LivingBible

[Jack777]

Thank you.:smile:

[kofh2u]

lucaspa:

1. Doesn't Lucifer = Satan = Mammon = Devil = Baalzebub? That is, they are all different words for the same entity. However, you have them being separate entities. How do you justify that Biblically?

KOFHY:
Now why would those terms mean the same thing, just out of hand. And why would Ba'alzebub be t
eir king if he was indeed "them?"

lucaspa:
2. In Freud's terminology, the Superego is our conscience = what we know is moral and ethical. Not "Logical/mathematical".

KOFHY:
Yes.
Freud denied a separate entity in Conscience.
And, he confused the early critical perspective of Superego with the assumption that Superego knows good from bad, as if it alone had such fruit from the tree of all knowledge.

Nevertheless, your intelligent reservations are to be applauded and I encourage you to investigate further. Freud is a century behind more recent ideas.

lucaspa:
1. No chance the "seven stars" are not the "seven churches" mentioned in 1:11?

KOFHY:
Well, like all of scripture, different interpretations appeal to different. In TE my hope is to discover that a continuous thread of secularly accepted rational fit all the long unanswered symbolism and euphemisms, sort of an Oscam's Razor appeal to such hypotheis.

But, in consistent TE interpretation I see 1:11 related to 1:20:

Rev. 1:20 The mystery of the seven stars, (the seven Freudian precursors of human behavior), which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks, (burning vapors of successive religious paradigms), The seven stars are the angels, (the seven sources of the seven Eric Erickson stages of psychological development) of the seven (evolving states of the Christian) churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven (institutionlized religious paradigms of the Christian) churches.

lucaspa:
2. The "he" in Rev. 1:16 refers to "one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden girdle round his breast" in Rev. 1:13. NOT "The Good Shephberd"

KOFHY:
Yes, you are sort of correct. Conscience has been with the evolving sons of mankind from the beginning. But Rev 1:13 reads in the context of the FBI:

Rev. 1:13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks, (while envisioning these seven social stages of development), one like unto the Son of man, (the Homoiousios psychic Conscience), clothed with a garment (as if a veil over the Subconscious Mind), down to the foot (of the whole psyche) and girt about, (embracing), the (seven)
paps (of the archetypal psychic apparati) with a golden (sacred) girdle (of homoiousian rightegousness).

lucaspa:
Your ability to change scripture to fit your imagination continues to boggle the mind.

KOFHY:
It is just a take that is so new to you that such a reactionary response should be expected.

lucaspa:
Are you really expecting us to ignore scripture and instead take your words?

KOFHY:
No.
I assume assume that: It is just a take that is so new to you that such a reactionary response should be expected.







1Cor. 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump (the final moment of the second coming): for the trumpet (that sounds from our own awakened Unconscious Mind) shall sound (as in the Transfiguration), and the "dead," (i.e.; genetically preserved, Collective Unconscious Minds stored in ever re-manufacured brain of the new born), shall be raised, (mentally) incorruptible, (as spirit-like thoughts), and we shall (evolve to a new level of humanity), be changed (into Homoiousian beings).

[lucaspa]

lucaspa:

1. Doesn't Lucifer = Satan = Mammon = Devil = Baalzebub? That is, they are all different words for the same entity. However, you have them being separate entities. How do you justify that Biblically?

KOFHY:
Now why would those terms mean the same thing, just out of hand. And why would Ba'alzebub be t
eir king if he was indeed "them?"You didn't answer my question. How do you justify Biblically that all those are separate entities and that none of them are synonyms for any of the others?
When I use the Cambridge dictionary online I get this definition for "satan":
"the name used by Christians and Jews for the Devil (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/results.asp?searchword=Devil) (= a powerful evil force and the enemy of God)"
When I look up "Lucifer" I get: "another name for Satan (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=69878) (= a powerful evil force and the enemy of God)"
Biblically, we have Mathew 12:22-24: "Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw. 23And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David? 24But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils." That would make Beelzebub = Satan.

So, I have several reasons for thinking that many of those terms are synonyms and not separate entities liked you listed them. I presume you have Biblical sources making them separate. I'd like to see them, please.

lucaspa:
2. In Freud's terminology, the Superego is our conscience = what we know is moral and ethical. Not "Logical/mathematical".

KOFHY:
Yes.
Freud denied a separate entity in Conscience.
And, he confused the early critical perspective of Superego with the assumption that Superego knows good from bad, as if it alone had such fruit from the tree of all knowledge.

Nevertheless, your intelligent reservations are to be applauded and I encourage you to investigate further. Freud is a century behind more recent ideas.Then please cite more recent sources that define Superego as "logical/mathematical". If there are no such references, upon what basis do you make the assertion?

lucaspa:
1. No chance the "seven stars" are not the "seven churches" mentioned in 1:11?

KOFHY:
Well, like all of scripture, different interpretations appeal to different. In TE my hope is to discover that a continuous thread of secularly accepted rational fit all the long unanswered symbolism and euphemisms, sort of an Oscam's Razor appeal to such hypotheis. But, in consistent TE interpretation I see 1:11 related to 1:20:

Rev. 1:20 The mystery of the seven stars, (the seven Freudian precursors of human behavior), which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks, (burning vapors of successive religious paradigms), The seven stars are the angels, (the seven sources of the seven Eric Erickson stages of psychological development) of the seven (evolving states of the Christian) churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven (institutionlized religious paradigms of the Christian) churches.This is where I have problems with what you call a "TE" interpretation. It doesn't even fit your criteria of Occam's Razor. You are multiplying entities unnecessarily since there is no requirement for TE, or anything else, for what you put into parentheses. John has seven churches. There is no need for the stars, angels, or candlesticks to go beyond symbolizing the churches.

lucaspa:
2. The "he" in Rev. 1:16 refers to "one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden girdle round his breast" in Rev. 1:13. NOT "The Good Shephberd"

KOFHY:
Yes, you are sort of correct. Conscience has been with the evolving sons of mankind from the beginning. But Rev 1:13 reads in the context of the FBI:

Rev. 1:13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks, (while envisioning these seven social stages of development), one like unto the Son of man, (the Homoiousios psychic Conscience), clothed with a garment (as if a veil over the Subconscious Mind), down to the foot (of the whole psyche) and girt about, (embracing), the (seven)
paps (of the archetypal psychic apparati) with a golden (sacred) girdle (of homoiousian rightegousness)."FBI"? I'm not familiar with that acronym in this situation. I would read Federal Bureau of Investigation, but that can't be what you mean.

Again, you are violating Occam's Razor wholesale.

lucaspa:
Your ability to change scripture to fit your imagination continues to boggle the mind.

KOFHY:
It is just a take that is so new to you that such a reactionary response should be expected.LOL! nice way to try to dismiss testing. The "take" violates the original intention of the author -- which is paramount --, the plain reading of the text, and science. If an idea can't stand testing, trying to dismiss opposition as "reactionary" doesn't help.

lucaspa:
Are you really expecting us to ignore scripture and instead take your words?

KOFHY:
No.
I assume assume that: It is just a take that is so new to you that such a reactionary response should be expected. But there is no justification for your take except that you want it to be that way. There is nothing in the text itself to justify your insertions.

Now, when I object to a literal reading of Genesis 1-3, I at least have textual and extrabiblical reasons for thinking that a literal reading is wrong. I have no textual reasons and no scientific ones for your take.







1Cor. 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump (the final moment of the second coming): for the trumpet (that sounds from our own awakened Unconscious Mind) shall sound (as in the Transfiguration), and the "dead," (i.e.; genetically preserved, Collective Unconscious Minds stored in ever re-manufacured brain of the new born), shall be raised, (mentally) incorruptible, (as spirit-like thoughts), and we shall (evolve to a new level of humanity), be changed (into Homoiousian beings).[/QUOTE]

[kofh2u]

You didn't answer my question. How do you justify Biblically that all those are separate entities and that none of them are synonyms for any of the others?
When I use the Cambridge dictionary online I get this definition for "satan":
"the name used by Christians and Jews for the Devil (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/results.asp?searchword=Devil) (= a powerful evil force and the enemy of God)"
When I look up "Lucifer" I get: "another name for Satan (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=69878) (= a powerful evil force and the enemy of God)"
Biblically, we have Mathew 12:22-24: "Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw. 23And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David? 24But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils." That would make Beelzebub = Satan.

So, I have several reasons for thinking that many of those terms are synonyms and not separate entities liked you listed them. I presume you have Biblical sources making them separate. I'd like to see them, please.

Then please cite more recent sources that define Superego as "logical/mathematical". If there are no such references, upon what basis do you make the assertion?

This is where I have problems with what you call a "TE" interpretation. It doesn't even fit your criteria of Occam's Razor. You are multiplying entities unnecessarily since there is no requirement for TE, or anything else, for what you put into parentheses. John has seven churches. There is no need for the stars, angels, or candlesticks to go beyond symbolizing the churches.

lucaspa:
2. The "he" in Rev. 1:16 refers to "one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden girdle round his breast" in Rev. 1:13. NOT "The Good Shephberd"

"FBI"? I'm not familiar with that acronym in this situation. I would read Federal Bureau of Investigation, but that can't be what you mean.

Again, you are violating Occam's Razor wholesale.

LOL! nice way to try to dismiss testing. The "take" violates the original intention of the author -- which is paramount --, the plain reading of the text, and science. If an idea can't stand testing, trying to dismiss opposition as "reactionary" doesn't help.

But there is no justification for your take except that you want it to be that way. There is nothing in the text itself to justify your insertions.

Now, when I object to a literal reading of Genesis 1-3, I at least have textual and extrabiblical reasons for thinking that a literal reading is wrong. I have no textual reasons and no scientific ones for your take.







1Cor. 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump (the final moment of the second coming): for the trumpet (that sounds from our own awakened Unconscious Mind) shall sound (as in the Transfiguration), and the "dead," (i.e.; genetically preserved, Collective Unconscious Minds stored in ever re-manufacured brain of the new born), shall be raised, (mentally) incorruptible, (as spirit-like thoughts), and we shall (evolve to a new level of humanity), be changed (into Homoiousian beings).[/QUOTE]


Wow!
That's a lot to respond to.

You are very articulate and generally well read. You have been aggressive and effective in all your responses to others. As any debate will attest, such Semantical Intelligence will carry you through on either side of most any issue.

I wonder how you might respond to what I write if you were to take my side of this matter.

Let us begin with the coincidental analogy between seven ancient names to who it was attributed the evil behaviors among men and the 20th century startling and revolutionary insight concerning our sevenfold psyche.

You might laugh at such a response against me as your own, that Satan has seven specific names, all synonyms.

You might ridicule that the earliest of superstitious religious ideas were animistic ideas. Responsibility for our evil acts, against our fellow man, is caused by entities outside of ourselves?

Laughable, you might label your adversary, that the seven names in the Gospels refer to one devil, as in Gibson's Passion, running behind the scenes, pulling strings.

Ignoring the SELF rigtheousness of the priesthood and "devilish" Intuition of the Pharisees' Animus is immaterial to the crucifixion.

Condemning the rock throwers as hypocrits conce ning libidinal sexual vice is irrelevant, not specifically linked to even Middle Age connection between Datan and sex, you would ask.

Is the bible concerned with zHuman Behavior, yet ignorant of Freud, you would ask, would you not?

I believe your questions here are set before the forum of your already convicted mind-set. These ideas, that, maybe, in the kingdom within us, God needs reign over these "seven spirits" is all too reasonable.

2Pet. 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of THE DIVINE NATURE (WITHIN OUR PSYCHE), having escaped the corruption that is in the world through (1. LIBIDINAL) lust.
2Pet. 1:5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith
virtue (2. NOT EGOISM); and to virtue knowledge (3. SUPEREGO
REFLECTION);
2Pet. 1:6 And to knowledge temperance (4. FEMININE QUALITY OF THE ANIMA); and to temperance patience (5. SELF, SELF CONTROL); and to patience godliness (6. HARMONIOUS ATTITUDE);
2Pet. 1:7 And to godliness brotherly kindness (7. FROM THE CAUDRON OF ONE'S ID); and to brotherly kindness charity (8. WITH GOODNESS OF CONSCIENCE).
2Pet. 1:8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you
that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our
Lord Jesus Christ.