Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

As difficult as it is to believe, there was a man, Frank Sheed,

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/featu...ts_may2011.asp

who proceeded you, who leaned heavily on Aquinas, who leaned heavily on...

I honestly think you must gloss over scripture passages such as Lk 18:9-14...

https://www.blueletterbible.org/nasb/luk/18/9/s_991009

Or the humility required (Phil 2:8) to participate (2 Pt 1:4) in the eternal exchange of love between the communion of Persons within the Trinity you are attempting to describe...

https://www.blueletterbible.org/nasb/phl/2/6/s_1105006

I marvel at someone who makes the theological virtue of hope (Rom 5) and...

https://www.blueletterbible.org/nasb...3/13/s_1075013

...irrelevant, who goes beyond what even Paul would claim for himself...

https://www.blueletterbible.org/nasb/1co/9/27/s_1071027
https://www.blueletterbible.org/nasb...t_conc_1066004

The fancy term is "presumption".

I honestly think you had no real point to make in your links-ladened post. Excellent case in point, is that I said nothing in my last post about "hope", yet you make the false claim that [somehow!] I made hope "irrelevant". Really? Do you practice lying often? Methinks you have been glossing over many passages, especially the ones dealing with lying.

It's very evident to me that you have presumed to have no sin.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You mean, who created it?

I mean what. But since all whos are whats you have half answered the question. So (same BOG IF) "who" created it?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Really? You must be witnessing another fight. I don't recall ever getting hit.

Neither does the guy who goes down for the count.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Neither does the guy who goes down for the count.

Yeah...but after he gets up he does.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I mean what. But since all whos are whats you have half answered the question. So (same BOG IF) "who" created it?

The Unmoved Mover a/k/a the Uncaused Cause. Most people refer to him as God.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Yeah...but after he gets up he does.

Not always.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Not always.

But 99.44% of the time. And besides...it's really me...Boxcar typing this. It's not his ghost.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The Unmoved Mover a/k/a the Uncaused Cause. Most people refer to him as God.

Which god?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Which god?

The one is who is the Unmoved Mover or Uncaused Cause. Also known in the OT scriptures as "Elohiymn", translated "God".

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The one is who is the Unmoved Mover or Uncaused Cause. Also known in the OT scriptures as "Elohiymn", translated "God".

How do you know that's the right one? Why not Zeus or Odin or Shiva?

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But it is abrogated in this New Covenant age because the canon has been closed for centuries.

And I do participate fully in God's truth...which Jesus said is only God's word. The Source for absolute truth is only the inspired, infallible Word of God.

Agreed. Revelation closed with the death of the last apostle. That's irrelevant to whether it is contained in scripture alone, or as referred to in (2 Thes 2:14–15).

"The Source for absolute truth is only the inspired, infallible Word of God"...I would agree, if scripture (Paul) wrote that about scripture itself. But he rather wrote that about the Church. (1 Tim 3:14).

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I honestly think you had no real point to make in your links-ladened post. Excellent case in point, is that I said nothing in my last post about "hope", yet you make the false claim that [somehow!] I made hope "irrelevant". Really? Do you practice lying often? Methinks you have been glossing over many passages, especially the ones dealing with lying.

It's very evident to me that you have presumed to have no sin.

If you can't understand the contrast between the theological virtue of hope, and Paul's "I'm strongly confident, but I don't declare myself justified", vs. your done-deal justification, I'll move along.

A fun weekend jousting and agreeing at times. Have a good week.

Doc

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Yeah...that's right...just like you haven't been able to do yourself. But if you're banking on Actor to do that...you're on the wrong pony in this race. Heck...he's not even a thoroughbred. More like a mule...

The fact is that what you choose to believe only has to make sense to you, and whether or not you've struck the mother lode of salvation with your interpretations, there is plenty of disagreement among those who are far more scholarly, but no less nuts, than you when it comes to interpreting the original Hebrew in Genesis 1. I'm sure you've heard of Gerald Schroeder who is both a Talmudic Scholar and a PhD physicist from MIT. He has a lot of interesting arguments connecting the six-day creation story to what physicists know about the age of the universe based on Einstein's Theory of Relativity. In the end, you don't know - you simply believe. Same with Schroeder. Schroeder, and most scientists correctly believe that on the face the six day story and the overwhelming (and quite real) physical evidence for the age of the universe and the earth doesn't seem to be possible to reconcile. On the other hand some scientists want to believe that there was a supernatural creator story that is compatible with the sciences, and frankly Schroeder's attempt at reconciliation was unique albeit flawed. Still, there are quite a few people who believe Shroeder has provided the most probable explanation for the apparent discrepancy between the natural and the supernatural.

Schroeder contends that the biblical description of the first six days following the creation of the universe in Genesis could be viewed as a priestly interpretation of the events that ensued after the Big Bang. Of course, the priests had no concept of the time that had elapsed since the universe was created. They were undoubtedly aware that the scientists of Babylonia, whose literature to which they had free access during the exile, believed that the world was at least 60,000 years and as many as half a million years old! But Genesis 1 was not written to document the world’s age. Genesis 1 was written to accomplish two completely different objectives: to establish that all of the world and its contents were God’s dominion and to set the stage for God’s establishing the Sabbath. The invention of Shabbat was a crucial step in the development of Judaism.

Cosmologists have determined the age of the universe to be somewhere around 14 to 15 billion years, give or take a billion. Schroeder shows that by relativistic time dilation, the number of seconds contained in six days counted from the original singularity in God’s space-time frame of reference amounts to the same number of years counted from the singularity in Earth’s space-time frame of reference.

If one determines for each “day” of the first six days of the universe from God’s point of view, the corresponding epoch during the first 15 billion years of the universe from Earth’s point of view, the correlation between what happens each day according to Genesis and what happens in each geological epoch, according to our understanding of cosmology, paleontology, thermodynamics, and geology, is, according to Schroeder, extraordinary.

Luckily, you are not constrained by any such need to reconcile the reality of the age of the universe with your theology, because you simply discard the science, and when you try to explain anything related to science you are ludicrous.

And although you think you've nailed the interpretation of B'reishit bara Elohim, there are multiple interpretations from qualified Hebrew scholars, which certainly could be correct. I won't go through them. As Shroeder noted, if you want to argue about the meaning of Hebrew phrases and you don't speak Hebrew, you are limited to picking the interpretation you like best.

You're not interested in an intellectual discussion. You are only interested in deifying yourself as the source of all biblical knowledge. By every action, you have proven yourself to be a megalomaniac, the font of all interpretation in your own mind. I can hardly wait for your Peewee Herman-esque response.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

The fact is that what you choose to believe only has to make sense to you, and whether or not you've struck the mother lode of salvation with your interpretations, there is plenty of disagreement among those who are far more scholarly, but no less nuts, than you when it comes to interpreting the original Hebrew in Genesis 1. I'm sure you've heard of Gerald Schroeder who is both a Talmudic Scholar and a PhD physicist from MIT. He has a lot of interesting arguments connecting the six-day creation story to what physicists know about the age of the universe based on Einstein's Theory of Relativity. In the end, you don't know - you simply believe. Same with Schroeder. Schroeder, and most scientists correctly believe that on the face the six day story and the overwhelming (and quite real) physical evidence for the age of the universe and the earth doesn't seem to be possible to reconcile. On the other hand some scientists want to believe that there was a supernatural creator story that is compatible with the sciences, and frankly Schroeder's attempt at reconciliation was unique albeit flawed. Still, there are quite a few people who believe Shroeder has provided the most probable explanation for the apparent discrepancy between the natural and the supernatural.

Schroeder contends that the biblical description of the first six days following the creation of the universe in Genesis could be viewed as a priestly interpretation of the events that ensued after the Big Bang. Of course, the priests had no concept of the time that had elapsed since the universe was created. They were undoubtedly aware that the scientists of Babylonia, whose literature to which they had free access during the exile, believed that the world was at least 60,000 years and as many as half a million years old! But Genesis 1 was not written to document the world’s age. Genesis 1 was written to accomplish two completely different objectives: to establish that all of the world and its contents were God’s dominion and to set the stage for God’s establishing the Sabbath. The invention of Shabbat was a crucial step in the development of Judaism.

Cosmologists have determined the age of the universe to be somewhere around 14 to 15 billion years, give or take a billion. Schroeder shows that by relativistic time dilation, the number of seconds contained in six days counted from the original singularity in God’s space-time frame of reference amounts to the same number of years counted from the singularity in Earth’s space-time frame of reference.

If one determines for each “day” of the first six days of the universe from God’s point of view, the corresponding epoch during the first 15 billion years of the universe from Earth’s point of view, the correlation between what happens each day according to Genesis and what happens in each geological epoch, according to our understanding of cosmology, paleontology, thermodynamics, and geology, is, according to Schroeder, extraordinary.

Luckily, you are not constrained by any such need to reconcile the reality of the age of the universe with your theology, because you simply discard the science, and when you try to explain anything related to science you are ludicrous.

And although you think you've nailed the interpretation of B'reishit bara Elohim, there are multiple interpretations from qualified Hebrew scholars, which certainly could be correct. I won't go through them. As Shroeder noted, if you want to argue about the meaning of Hebrew phrases and you don't speak Hebrew, you are limited to picking the interpretation you like best.

You're not interested in an intellectual discussion. You are only interested in deifying yourself as the source of all biblical knowledge. By every action, you have proven yourself to be a megalomaniac, the font of all interpretation in your own mind. I can hardly wait for your Peewee Herman-esque response.

Yeah...I may discard the "science", alright, but I don't discard the genealogies in scripture. And the genealogies say this little 'ol planet ain't quite as old as the high priests of scientism dogmatically state it is. How old exactly? I don't know because I have not personally studied the genealogies but have read extra-biblical works of people who have. The age of the universe is not of paramount importance to me; for there are too many other truths in scripture that are.

Oh yeah...and about B'reishit bara Elohim thingy, I settle on the interpretation that best fits the immediate context (foremost) of a passage and/or the larger context of scripture. My interpretation best fits the immediate context of the creation account for reasons I have stated previously. And the primary reason is that Time is a creation of God, and it wasn't created until the fourth day which was when God finished up constructing the rest of the celestial bodies of the universe to keep planet earth's inhabitants from from dying from boredom when looking up into the blackness of night.

Have a nice evening, Mr. Halv.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

If you can't understand the contrast between the theological virtue of hope, and Paul's "I'm strongly confident, but I don't declare myself justified", vs. your done-deal justification, I'll move along.

A fun weekend jousting and agreeing at times. Have a good week.

Doc

The only thing I understand is that you introduced a non sequitur into this discussion, as I never even remotely hinted or implied anything about "hope".

Perhaps we can discuss justification at another time and how your interpretation of that Pauline passage would have Paul contradicting himself in other places in scripture.