I’d like to burn some very typical straw men. Hopefully, in the debate over Christianity, these unnecessary issues can be avoided.
Creation - Neither Genesis nor any of the scriptures demands that the earth and universe is only 6- to 10- thousand years old. The Hebrew word for “day” (yom) could mean long periods of time. The words “there was morning and there was evening, the first day” could be translated “there was beginning and ending, the first (yom)”.
(BTW, the narrative moves to the surface of the earth in Genesis 1:2. While stars were certainly already in existence, their light was not visible on the surface of the earth until the opaque early atmosphere cleared).
Adam and Eve – While scripture does indicate they were specially created, there are gaps in the biblical genealogies that could place Adam and Eve back 60- to 90-thousand years. This would also predict increasing discovery of a common DNA originating between east Africa and the Mesopotamia.
(BTW, the word for “rib” means “side”. The story of Eve’s creation could mean God created her from Adam for symbolic purposes. I speculate a biopsy, of sorts, from the side, with a few million variations to the DNA producing a female. )
Talking Snakes - A boa constrictor with vocal cords is not in view here. That image comes largely from medieval art. The “serpent” in the garden was intelligent and used for evil. One can only speculate what sort of being it was (perhaps one no longer extant).
The Flood – The fact that a great flood is found in various cultures indicates that it happened. Two questions emerge: which account is most accurate and whether the flood was global or local.
I’m of the opinion that the flood was regional rather than global for several reasons. First, while the flood was universal in effect, it was only regional in extent due to human’s not having moved much beyond the Mesopotamia at the time. A global flood was unnecessary.
Secondly, language like “under all the heavens”, “all the earth”, etc. are most likely from the perspective of the observer, i.e. a flood from horizon to horizon. “Mountains” could be translated “hills” with rain and water “covering” (or running over) them rather than submerging them.
Thirdly, this would mean there were not polar bears and penguins, etc. on the ark, but only animals indigenous to the region and of special relation to man.
Fourthly, a global flood would have torn the ark to pieces, no matter how well built. And it certainly would not have landed anywhere near its original location.
Fifthly, the scripture itself said a “large wind” was used in the evaporation process. Such a wind would have virtually no effect in a global flood.
Finally, if the flood were only regional why not just have Noah, his family, and whatever animals needed, hike out of the area and be safe? Why a big specifically-built ark? I think because God often operates via symbols teaching important truths or significance, i.e. salvation in Christ or deliverance through troubled waters (trials).
Use of Metaphor – The scriptures use metaphor and other literary devices. One need only utilize common exegetical analysis and context to determine what any author meant as literal or metaphorical (and on a case-by-case basis).
Inerrancy – If there are consequential or factual errors in the Bible that does not mean Christianity is false. However, I find it remarkable how well the Bible holds up to scrutiny and that there are plausible answers to discrepancies. Personally, I hold to the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy.
Hell – is not a place of torture (external) but of torment (internal). There are many descriptions of hell in the scriptures. The “fire” is most likely not the chemical combustion we’re familiar with. It, combined with all the other descriptions, reduces to separation from God and the judgment of God.
This does not make hell more tolerable (that’s not possible). But it does dispel hillbilly theology that has poor souls swatting flames for eternity! Christ depicted conversation taking place “in the flames”. No person could have a conversation while on fire! On our familiar planet, one is in mindless torture if burning.
It is, however, a profound tragedy to be eternally separated from God. It is a “spiritual chaos” one enters when the intact “self” survives the physical body. There are indications that some kind of body could exist in hell.
Heaven – is a remarkably physical place. It is not ethereal or immaterial. It is a combination of a “new heaven and new earth”. We will live on earth in physical bodies that are “spiritual” which nonetheless have access to one another and continued exploration of the universe without many of the limits of current bodies affected by entropy, etc. Christ’s resurrected body could be touched and he ate food, etc. This describes the redeemed, resurrected body.
This is not to be confused with an intermediary state which is not physical. At death, one goes either into the very presence of God to await the resurrection of the body, or in a state of chaos to await final judgment.
“God will not allow anything to happen in your life that you can’t handle” – False! Scripturally, there are plenty of things that happen that one cannot handle! Devastating things! The accurate teaching is that nothing will happen that God’s grace will not get one through.
“You must become like children” - Christ said to “humble yourself like a little child”. It does not mean to be naïve, ignorant, gullible, or irrational.
Pascal’s Wager – This is not an argument for God nor necessarily addressed to atheists. Pascal used a popular gambling motif to shake the French laity out of spiritual complacency and to at least move them in the direction of God.
Further, the Wager, as it is commonly used, is not allowed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. He said if Christ was not risen, then the jig is up! Christianity is false! He did not say believe it anyway “just in case” or because it provides a positive way of life.
I hope these internal considerations provide food for thought.
I didn't tackle this one, because I didn't want to come across as contrary, but Christianity had long accepted the divinity of Christ before Nicea. It is in very early Christian writings. There were only 3 bishops of the 300 so at Nicea who sided with Arius. Nicea didn't settle the books of the Bible either. That was done later and it was the synods of Hippo and Carthage. But there is an ancient fragment that shows what people believed called the Muratorian Fragment/muratorian canon http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/muratorian.html. There also are a lot of ancient writings. Those other gospels are less legitimate than the four which are cited often in ancient writings from the 2nd and 3rd centuries.
What Nicea came up with was to settle the Arian controversy. Arius was a leader in Alexandria. It was a massive port city and the ideas he was spreading were picking up traction. But his position was a philosophical improvement attempt, not a historical tradition.
There was squabbling and pettiness at some of the councils though. Especially Chalcedon.
Yes John, I'm familiar with the Arian controversy, and don't disagree with that part of what you're saying, but according to many of my sources, there was great dispute among many of the various factions of early Christianity. Some said Yeshua was fully human, and that he was simply imbued with the "Holy Spirit," possibly at his baptism, and given superhuman powers; others said that he was in fact the son of god, and as such, was half-human and half-god; still others said that he was god himself, in the flesh, who popped down here and became human, a) to see what being human was all about, and b) to sacrifice himself to himself for sins committed by imperfect humans, which he could have prevented by creating perfect humans in the first place. Many, who believed Yeshua to actually BE god, were thought by many others to be blasphemous.
Constantine, with his empire falling apart, hoped (vainly) that religion might help reunite it, and needed everyone to come together on definitions, and thus the Council was convened.
One of my sources is Christianity Through the Centuries by Earle Cairns, while another is A History of God, by Karen Armstrong.
Arius, according to Armstrong, did not deny the divinity of Yeshua, but argued that it was blasphemous to think he was divine by nature, and in fact, agreed with Origen in this regard. He advanced another theory, that the universe was created from nothing, whereas even the Priestly Source, who wrote Genesis 1, implied, and Origen and Clement concurred, that it was created from primordial chaos, and it is the Arian ideal that prevails today.
Early Christian theologists agreed that Yeshua had bridged the gap between god and Man, but how he did it was disputed - Either Yeshua was divine, or he belonged to the created order. Athanasius maintained it was the former, Arius, the latter. In fact, he wrote to then Bishop Alexander that god was, "the only begotten, the only external, the only one without beginning, the only true, the only one who has immortality, the only wise, the only good, the only potentate" (Arius, Epistle to Alexander), and cited the prologue of St. John's Gospel, that the "Word," the "Logos," had been with god since the beginning, "Through him all things came to be, not one thing had its being, but through him." Arius insisted that the Logos had been promoted to divine status by god, and that, made Man, the Logos would obey him perfectly, but maintained that Yeshua's divinity was not natural to him, it was conferred by god, and had provided reams of scripture to support his contention.
Athanasius took the other tack - god, "saw that all created nature, if left to its own principles, was in flux and subject to dissolution. To prevent this and to keep the universe from disintegrating back into nonbeing, he made all things by his very own eternal Logos and endowed the creation with its being" (Athanasius, Against the Heathen). He contended that if the Logos were a vulnerable creature, it would be unable to save Mankind from extinction, only he who had created the world, could save it, and that meant that the Logos made flesh must be of the same nature as the Creator.
According to my sources, when the bishops met at Nicaea in 325, very few shared Athanasius' view, most held to a position somewhere between his and Arius', but Athanasius managed to impose his theology on the delegates, and with Constantine breathing down their necks, only Arius and two of his companions refused to sign the creed. Though they agreed for the first time ever, that the universe had been created ex nihilo, the Bishops also decided that the creator and the redeemer were one.
We believe in one God,
the Father Almighty,
maker of all things, visible and invisible,
and in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the Son of God,
light from light, true God from true God,
begotten not made,
of one substance (homoousion) with the Father,
through whom all things were made,
those things that are in heaven and those things that are on earth,
who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made man,
rose again on the third day,
ascended into the heavens
and will come
to judge the living and the dead.
And we believe in the Holy Spirit.
While I accept that you are far more knowledgeable than I, and have even saved a number of your posts to use as future sources of information, I have a number of sources that differ with your post, and feel I need to present their points of view as well.
Good morning, I hope you had a happy fourth! Thanks for sharing that. That does differ, and I am interested in the adventure of sorting through this. I'll share a few things and then do some digging to see where these differing views source from.
Origen, as far as I can remember suscribed to a popular notion at the time, that time was circular and that what once was, would once again become. This is why he had to fend off accusations that he indicated that the devil would be saved. He believed that all beings were the same except for God, and that we fell down planes of existence as we became corrupted. Satan fell the furthest. Christ was the one one that didn't fall. But to Origen, souls were preexistent. One important thing about Origen though is that his positions are neither positions, nor do they represent what Christianity thought at large. He kind of goes off on his own tangents. He also doesn't make direct theological claims, but is pretty much the most intellectually dishonest apologist who ever lived, and basically says "this could explain it but it isn't necessarily how it is" for most of his stuff. He also contradicts himself and doesn't mind that he does, according to Heine. But studying Origen you will also find that he was sent to deal with heretics, and try to convince them to change their ways. Even at the time of Origen, the Church had a strong notion of heresy and practiced excommunication for it. The church had already dealt with Cerinthus on the issue of the divinity of Christ. Cerinthus tends to be forgotten in all of this.
Arius on the other hand in contrast to Origen, contended that Christ was the highest created being as you mentioned. The part about his take on creation of the universe, didn't seem important to my professor I guess so he must have skipped it, because that isn't something I have run across. Though from a quick glance, Hebrew texts show the primordial chaos being created, and then the heavens and the earth being formed from that chaos. (thinking the ANE model with the hard firmament in sky that made a bubble over the earth, the waters above the firmament ect...)
Much of the controversy centered as far as I understand, centered around defining the nature of the the Father Son and Spirit, which finally got settled as Homousia (one essence). The controversy around Arius concerned the severity of his punishment, as the council was pretty much settled on the issue he was wrong. Some wanted a slap on the wrist, and Athanasius was out for blood (declaring him a heretic).
If you look at a lot of source material, such as Justin Martyr, and other early writings, you will find that they call Jesus God.
Everything you said about Athanasius I know is true because I did a paper on that document On the Incarnation. I read it carefully. What stuck out to me most was that he didn't catch the Infinitive absolute in the hebrew language, and so made this huge theology out of "dying you shall die" when having an infinitive like that next to a statement of fact, it just reinforces it. He makes a huge treatise out of a very bad translation error. Really bad since I have some pretty crappy Hebrew skills and caught it. I do see Athanasius as innovative, and his take on it seems to create Eastern Orthodoxy as we know it today.
Anyway, I'll dig around and find some sources on this as this is all from memory at this point, and memory is unreliable, especially 5-6 year old memories. But I can see we mostly agree on Arius, with the exception that we didn't cover Arius's contention of the divinity being conferred, we just took it from the point where Arius contends that Logos is the highest created being, so I can't say anything of this... Athanasius, I completely agree on how you put it. Origen, I disagree, as I contend he thought all souls were prexistent and eternal. And I disagree about the nature of the council as having a more open view towards the Arian controversy, as opposed to how I contend, more understanding view of how Arius came to his conclusions.
How I contend it went down was that while there was more tolerance for philosophy on the matter, the historical tradition was pretty solid at the point that Jesus was God. One of the things that perplexes me though, is how Origen got away with saying what he did about Christ being divine eternal but not God, while Cerinthus was crushed for saying the Christ-spirit came upon the man Jesus at baptism...
The sources you are using seem to swing away from the center toward an agenda, but the same could be said for those that seem to uphold the traditional view on the situation as well. Anyway, off to find some sources and see what I can pull up. Those sources should point to texts we can look at on ccel.org.
John - since none of this is real, it might seem to most, that you and I are debating the equivalent of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (trust me, they ain't born with it!), whereas in reality, we're discussing the history of the discussion of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Lol, yeah. And because this history created a religion and that religion is huge, the history matters. Especially if people are discrediting that religion on account of bad history instead of discrediting it on all the other things that show it isn't true.
Do you think we should make a new thread? We can copy our parts over again for contiunity...
Sure, go ahead - you can probably do it with far less sarcasm.
Start with a premise to which I can paste my response, and we'll take it from there.
(BTW - strongly suggest you pick up a copy of the Armstrong book, I think you'd like it.)
John Kelly and life understanding the same rhythm of knowing as he. This is interesting subject matter pertaining to Origen and Origen is understanding something interesting with you.
Time is not able to be included within what is continuous circulation which circles back. You can understand this together with reverse rotation that is counterclockwise supporting what some refer to as perpetual motion experiences and the applciation of a provision of sustained liquid helium which is the experience of superfluidity. This is the perpetual activity place where life is doing while saying what they know about complete. It is united with your experiencing area to understand to you an intention to "circle back" to what has been understood together before and this is what always happens prior to an existence area within horizontal time being given a new activity set and your area needs one...I would say soon@now. There is nothing lower that liquid hydrogen (look into how you are on the internet and how that life moves, does and says) as energy goes and it does not support the experience of united interest to move over to continuable activity.
Relating to: "This is why he had to fend off accusations that he indicated that the devil would be saved." This is not able to be understood this way and within what is an experience of peace as well as robust celebration of knowledge there is no causation of defense. This line of written horse manure is supported to be understood as "there is something happening that always happens and what is happening is supposed to be occurring toward a continuality of both activity and knowing that appreciates. Within this understanding you can see that there is no such thing as evil simply human beings that are misunderstanding how they exist and how they are brought into what they will always know and do that is done at an experience that some love to call love.
Relating to: "He believed that all beings were the same except for God, and that we fell down planes of existence as we became corrupted." This was never said by Origen and you can understand this communication: "Do something different related to your activity place to understand your continuable interest with positions of both activity sets and knowing pathways completely united with Origin who understands at a rhythm that is your always knowing pathway within what is the causation of circumlocutio."
Relating to: "Christ was the one one that didn't fall." There exists an understanding in the area of science and mathematics about dimensions and you can understand that the exist of Jesus as well as mine and others are not understanding any integrations with what is "nervous system communication" and this is occurring at an area that can be called the united one that is ordered by positions. Life that is caused to aware experiences with what is internal integrations with divided communication is existing in an area that is able to be called separation where human beings are understanding with each others bits and pieces of what they will ultimately be positioned to know about complete at an existence being in an environment where it can be caused to occur.
Relating to: "To Origen, souls were preexistent." There is nothing that is new and all that has ever been and will ever be is already existing and it is unfolded, so to write, as it can be understood, used and spoken about at the area of continuality.
Relating to: "One important thing about Origen though is that his positions are neither positions, nor do they represent what Christianity thought at large. He kind of goes off on his own tangents." You can understand the causation of circumlocution it s how you are interested and how this part of your existence that is trying to "figure something out" sees, knows and experiences what is continuous appreciation perpetually.
Relating to the voids in theology: Origen is relating to God and not to theology which is unsure of some things that they would love to know about and understanding parts of something within connection and not unity. God understanding to him allows him to be understood by this phrase "Yes, you can explain something that way in the area where there is verbal speech at your aware experiencing area, but that understanding because it relates to what is not supported to continue isn't what you will always know, do and say about and is when all is seen together. Under these conditions what you are explaining is necessary but not interesting. What is necessary is subjected to change and is not an eternal understanding about continuable movement and communication.
Origen was purposeful for communicating about how human beings can use themselves within what is understanding ability .This phrase is not able to be united with the experience of Origin "trying (working) to convince someone to change their ways" and instead Origin and existence that share his position mark are caused to activity that is understand how life that will use themselves together at an experiencing area use themselves understanding unity completely doing what they know how to do that is able to be provided at peace and doing what is continuable that is loved within what is caused to appreciate.
Relating to heresy: Understand heresy from the Greek related to using yourself within the causation of united interest span. To experience a united interest you have to be doing an activity that is not located in the dimension/realm/zone/area/quantum locations that are being understood and not seen in the area of separation.
Sort of makes you wonder what kind of random word generation software he's using - or at the very least, what he's smoking>
I think it is someone just messing around. Someone on an atheist site whose name sounds like "The Holy TV Set" is just a little suspicious.
To know a gap and to hate it is an atheist and they are doing what they are supposed to do.
There is no such thing as random and smoke is not interesting or necessary in order to experience what it is you are free to do and know about completely which is the meaning of whole.
It is well to know how you understand the parts of what you do pertaining to your interests.
Unless you are participating with the life that is able to see what I write as I am writing it because they can use it now, the only areas of what I am writing that you can understand to you within the delay that is occurring at the area of internet, is the portions called understanding ability. The rest would have to be given to you within a translation by someone who is getting this and then assembling that together within your activity grouping where that non continuable activity is not provided at unity with what you can continue to do participating in knowing placed directly to you.
In order for you to be able to communicate and talk about the parts of your interests when you are dependent upon someone who has written about it and then someone else who is placing or marketing a translation of it into a divided preoccupation area, the original knowing must be diverted to what is the living integrating communication of nervous system information or what you would understand as aware thought. Aware thought is what you can sit around and think you are and someone who understands like you is telling themselves in what they misunderstand as "private" before they say it or type it. This information is something that human beings do not agree with each other even while they can understand to tolerate that within what are the words diversity, different and dissonant. Diversity, difference and dissonance are disassociated from unity, disassociated from a united understanding (one common knowing about how we understand knowledge and use ourselves in this experience together shared according to interesting experiencing pathways across areas) and disassociated from what is appreciating coherence. Aware integrations with diverted knowing placed to nervous system information is not caused to occur to life that is understanding their interests complete and instead sight knowing is the experience with knowledge and activity that is added to again and again.
Life that is understanding their existence as dependent upon human beings to tell them how to understand something and how to handle themselves when there is an occurrence that is not the same as before (discomfort, "ailment", loss, etc) will continue to have gaps. Life that is understanding diverted through atheism and other activity that relates that way upset with something that relates to a religion are caused proficient at locating gaps. It is at the gaps that the experience of truth falls apart and an atheist is very interested in that experience and is caused to be able to know exactly where the truth halts. It is really something to appreciate within what is the outcome. The outcome is to drive up complete understanding for the life that will use itself at unity knowing complete and so peace and proper understanding with the areas of life that relate to the atheist is necessary to achieve. An atheist will doggedly persist in a way that some do not understand how they do it caused to a rapidity of reading and what some might "label" compulsivity toward what is purposeful in causing the life going around saying what is incomplete (such as Christianity as well as Physics) to come together with what is always true about the provision of knowledge and continuous experiencing according to their interest pathway. It is possible that some atheists can say something about their experience with reading text and pages even while they will not understand how or why it is occurring completely unless they move over to what they can continue to see. Reading is not a continuable interaction with life and results in cellular division...so "put down the flipper presidents in this area of all varieties".
When you understand complete the only thing an atheist can understand to you if they understand to say something in any way at all is what is caused directly through the area of Infinity through still negative energy (this is liquid hydrogen that is not causing change or entropy) toward a next necessary communication going to life that is understanding itself out of division.
"Take your clothes off and go around in something you can continue to is the current circumlocutio placed to the area using itself as and relating like a private research crew formerly relating like hop scotch territory "!?service-2-you?!" intelligence platforms who will now move over to use themselves seeing and understanding what is experienced to them directly as interesting caused to be added to seamlessly.
If you remain in activity areas where life is understanding from what can be moved over to a television set (same as computer) you will understand something from life relating like the cia which is able to be said together with the life at the vatican as well as medical and computing technology. You will understand about additional activities being added to this area relating to movement and communication through what is an always back and forth process called diversion and this completely understandable to both life like the cia and to you.
If you understand an interest in moving out of this different activity place then you know there is nothing a human can understand itself to be providing and you go over to see what is interesting united with your repositioned circumstances (how you know what you will continue to about what you see and are doing that is added to). Life at unity participates at a sharing experience and no one "thinks" they are providing horizontally or transactionally. Transformation is good communication and the final product is happening at unity and the unity of knowledge and activity is added to again and again without an end.
I think, Kevin, that you just may have found that disciple you came here looking for --