Jump to content
ByFaithAlone

Let's Start a Dialogue

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, ByFaithAlone said:

The problem in my mind for those who interpret Genesis in a literal manner is two-fold. Firstly, they assume that Christ, his apostles and the early church viewed it in such a way

Jesus did view Genesis as literal:

And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.    Matt 23:35 ESV

But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,but only the Father. As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.  Matt 24:36-39 ESV

It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,”Jesus replied. “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’[So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”  Mark 10:5-9 ESV

These verses indicate that Jesus considered Able a real person, that he thought the flood really happened and that God created the world and people as humans.  He never treated Genesis as allegory.

  • This is Worthy 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vince said:

My main objection is that there are not any philosophical arguments for the existence of God that lead to proof.  If a person can be talked into believing in God by philosophical arguments then they can be talked out of belief by them as well.  Faith comes from hearing the gospel.  I think we should make sure we get to this in any discussion we have with a non believer.  

I am not saying that we should not pursue these arguments.  I agree that it is a starting point with some people.  At some point though the question arises, why do we need complicated philosophical arguments to prove the existence of God if he indeed does exist?  Especially when the consequences are so dire and when these don't answer which God exists.

I would agree to this in part. I would say that some people may find certain philosophical arguments for God's existence compelling and others will not. As you say, at the very least it is a starting point. For others, it may encourage a theistic or deistic approach to the universe if perhaps not a Judeo-Christian one. I very much follow in the footsteps of Augustine, Aquinas, Bacon and others who thought reason and science was one way for us to experience God in our lives. As you say, this is not the only way to experience God nor do I claim it is the best way. All I know is that it works for me and I am grateful for that. 

1 hour ago, Vince said:

Jesus did view Genesis as literal:

And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.    Matt 23:35 ESV

But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,but only the Father. As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.  Matt 24:36-39 ESV

It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,”Jesus replied. “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’[So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”  Mark 10:5-9 ESV

These verses indicate that Jesus considered Able a real person, that he thought the flood really happened and that God created the world and people as humans.  He never treated Genesis as allegory.

I think I always specified that it is the creation account as allegorical. If I misspoke once and said the entirety of Genesis please forgive me. When Origen, Augustine and others talk of the allegorical nature of Genesis, they refer to the creation account. Also remember that just because a specific name is used by Christ don't assume that the person is historical. Context is key. For example, when Jesus tells the parable of Lazarus and the rich man most Christians do not assume that particular Lazarus existed (obviously there is the other Lazarus who was a friend of Christ who's story is not told in allegorical form). He does not need to state that Lazarus and the rich man are not historical figures as this was and is understood. Rather, they are part of a parable by which Christ taught about humility, salvation and the afterlife among other things. If we apply the context of the Jewish thinkers at the time and the Church Fathers it seems to indicate that many prominent Jews, apostles and the earliest followers of the Christian faith took an allegorical approach to the creation account.  

With regards to the specific individuals you mention, theistic evolution in general does not deny the possibility of a historical Adam or historical descendants. Some theistic evolutionists believe Adam and Eve to be historical while others view them as allegorical. Either way, most theistic evolutionists would argue that it is unlikely that they are the only humans given that in Genesis it notes that Cain was fearful of being killed by those "in the land of Nod."  One.opinion linked an article on this thread or perhaps the other active thread regarding a historical Adam and theistic evolution coexisting. Nor do theistic evolutionists deny the possibility of a historical flood although most if not all would argue that the flood was a localized event and that water covered "the whole land" is a better translation into English then the translation water covered "the whole world."    

In regards to God creating humanity, a theistic evolutionist would agree that this is true. However, we would contend that this creation is within the framework of biological evolution. In other words, God created man through that process and imbued humanity with the imago deo (Image of God). The Image of God and our relationship with the creator is what makes humans unique. Thus, theistic evolutionists do not deny God's creative power and still place God as the Uncaused Cause or Prime Mover in Thomistic terms. Once again, such an interpretation seems consistent with the Jewish thought on the matter at the time (see the work of Philo) and early Christian thinkers that were taught either directly by apostles or by the followers of the apostles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello…:)

Has anyone here considered that there existed an age before Genesis?

—Selah—

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scriptures below refer to 3 earth ages.

2 Peter 3:1-8

1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:

2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
KJV

Selah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ll post now scriptures from the Proverbs:

Proverbs 8:20-34 King James Version (KJV)

20 I lead in the way of righteousness, in the midst of the paths of judgment:

21 That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance; and I will fill their treasures.

22 The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.

23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.

25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:

26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.

27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:

28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:

29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:

30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;

31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men. (angels)

32 Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children: for blessed are they that keep my ways.

33 Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not.

—Selah—

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SelahSong said:

Hello…:)

Has anyone here considered that there existed an age before Genesis?

—Selah—

Another of Origen's heresies as per this exerpt from  HERESIES THEN AND NOW

Despite his defense of orthodoxy, Origen developed several heretical doctrines that were eventually condemned in 553. His most notable deviant teachings involve the preexistence of human souls, the subordination of the Son to the Father, and universalism. Few groups currently adopt all of Origen's teachings. Nonetheless, groups influenced by Joseph Smith believe in both the preexistence of souls and the essential subordination of the Son to the Father, and many other groups believe in both the preexistence of souls (usually in the form of reincarnation) and universalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Job 38 King James Version (KJV)

38 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,

Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?

When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,

10 And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,

11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?

12 Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;

13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

14 It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.

15 And from the wicked their light is withholden, and the high arm shall be broken.

16 Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?

17 Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?

18 Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all.

19 Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof,

20 That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof?

21 Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born? or because the number of thy days is great?

22 Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,

23 Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?

24 By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?

25 Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters, or a way for the lightning of thunder;

26 To cause it to rain on the earth, where no man is; on the wilderness, wherein there is no man;

27 To satisfy the desolate and waste ground; and to cause the bud of the tender herb to spring forth?

28 Hath the rain a father? or who hath begotten the drops of dew?

29 Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?

30 The waters are hid as with a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen.

31 Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?

32 Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?

33 Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?

34 Canst thou lift up thy voice to the clouds, that abundance of waters may cover thee?

35 Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go and say unto thee, Here we are?

36 Who hath put wisdom in the inward parts? or who hath given understanding to the heart?

37 Who can number the clouds in wisdom? or who can stay the bottles of heaven,

38 When the dust groweth into hardness, and the clods cleave fast together?

39 Wilt thou hunt the prey for the lion? or fill the appetite of the young lions,

40 When they couch in their dens, and abide in the covert to lie in wait?

41 Who provideth for the raven his food? when his young ones cry unto God, they wander for lack of meat.

 

Edited by SelahSong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Michael37 said:

Another of Origen's heresies as per this exerpt from  HERESIES THEN AND NOW

Despite his defense of orthodoxy, Origen developed several heretical doctrines that were eventually condemned in 553. His most notable deviant teachings involve the preexistence of human souls, the subordination of the Son to the Father, and universalism. Few groups currently adopt all of Origen's teachings. Nonetheless, groups influenced by Joseph Smith believe in both the preexistence of souls and the essential subordination of the Son to the Father, and many other groups believe in both the preexistence of souls (usually in the form of reincarnation) and universalism

Sounds like heresy to me, Michael.  

—Selah—

Edited by SelahSong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Sounds like a dinosaur to me.)

 

Job 40:15-24 King James Version (KJV)

15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.

20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.

21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.

22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.

23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.

24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

--Selah--

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Michael37 said:

Another of Origen's heresies as per this exerpt from  HERESIES THEN AND NOW

Despite his defense of orthodoxy, Origen developed several heretical doctrines that were eventually condemned in 553. His most notable deviant teachings involve the preexistence of human souls, the subordination of the Son to the Father, and universalism. Few groups currently adopt all of Origen's teachings. Nonetheless, groups influenced by Joseph Smith believe in both the preexistence of souls and the essential subordination of the Son to the Father, and many other groups believe in both the preexistence of souls (usually in the form of reincarnation) and universalism.

I am not saying Origen was perfect. None of us have a perfect theological understanding and obviously I don't agree with everything Origen had to say. Obviously, some of his views should rightly be considered to be flawed. However, let us note that even in the quote you post above it mentions that he also defended "orthodoxy" and Christian groups still hold to some of his ideas just not all of them. Also note that the allegorical interpretation of the creation account was not one of the theological positions condemned in 553. Instead you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In debate one might call this an ad hominem attack or an attack on the character of the person (i.e. because one thing someone said is incorrect, everything else they say must also be incorrect). 

As I mentioned before, he is not the only one in the Early Church to hold such views on Genesis and the creation account. Irenaeus of Lyons who wrote "Against Heresies" and criticized certain dogmas of the Alexandrian school of thought (which Origen belonged to) also commented on the allegorical nature of the creation in Genesis. St. Augustine who is probably one of, if not the most, respected theologian and Church Father in the Western tradition also uses allegorical interpretation.

Simply pointing out that certain members of the church were wrong about one or multiple aspects of theology does not indicate that we should reject them altogether. After all, I am sure we are all wrong about some matters of theology. My point is that it is a well documented historical and common interpretation of the Early Church  that the creation account was allegorical in nature and none of these views were condemned by any of the Early Church councils when all Christians were still unified.      

Edited by ByFaithAlone
spelling errors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×