Knowledge or Science, falsely so called.

[JohnR7]

4 hours ago, Mr. M said:

I did not mention any science because the issue is any knowledge used by "unreasonable men" to undermine faith, applied in opposition to the knowledge of God.

That is not so easy to do with chatbots that determine what reason and logic. Their reasoning is based on the patterns learned from large amounts of text data. Of course, we still have mass hysteria. We read that "Every man did what was right in his own eyes". (Judges 17:6)

The phrase is often interpreted as highlighting the moral and spiritual decline of the Israelites during that time. It suggests that people were making subjective judgments about what they considered to be right or wrong, rather than adhering to a higher standard of morality. It reflects a state of moral relativism and a lack of clear moral authority.

[JohnR7]

7 hours ago, Who me said:

Natural selection is a demonstrable process, while the benefits of mutation and genetic drift are not so easily proved.

There is a lot of debate and discussion, but I am not worried about science and what we read in our Biology book. We have a federal park here that tries to maintain a healthy ecology. A lot of species are allowed to live now. We have buzzards, bobcats & foxes that we did not have before they established the Park. I have raccoons, possums, skunks, rabbits, cats and so on in my back yard that I photograph. 

[BeyondET]

5 hours ago, Mr. M said:

I did not mention any science because the issue is any knowledge used by "unreasonable men" to undermine faith, applied in opposition to the knowledge of God. Paul labels this knowledge (science) "falsely so called". I have studied and applied science and engineering my whole life and have never questioned my faith in God as a result. Paul prays that this does not hinder the Gospel going forward.

2 Thessalonians 3:1 Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may run swiftly and be glorified, just as it is with you, 2 and that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men; for not all have faith.

The thread was never about science, but about prayer for those who hear the word of faith to receive truth unhindered by knowledge "falsely so called", used by "unreasonable and wicked men" to oppose faith in God.

 

Not one in particular but you did mention all of them as in (sciences) which I don't think it's referring to sciences.

[Mr. M]

8 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

Not one in particular but you did mention all of them as in (sciences) which I don't think it's referring to sciences.

 

no, "knowledge or science, falsely so called" used intentionally to undermine faith is Paul's concern. It certainly could refer to sciences in a modern context, if used with that intent. The topic is Paul's consistent appeal for prayer that the Word of God will prevail. To me, this speaks to the vulnerability of the human heart, not the weakness of the Message. The pure in heart shall see God, otherwise, the veil remains. Turning to Christ removes the veil, and dissolution of doubts that oppose faith. Science gives us insight into the creation, but cannot replace the Creator. Romans 1

[BeyondET]

7 minutes ago, Mr. M said:

 

no, "knowledge or science, falsely so called" used intentionally to undermine faith is Paul's concern. It certainly could refer to sciences in a modern context, if used with that intent. The topic is Paul's consistent appeal for prayer that the Word of God will prevail. To me, this speaks to the vulnerability of the human heart, not the weakness of the Message. The pure in heart shall see God, otherwise, the veil remains. Turning to Christ removes the veil, and dissolution of doubts that oppose faith. Science gives us insight into the creation, but cannot replace the Creator. Romans 1

It wasn't knowledge or science. Just a couple of translations use the word science instead of knowledge. The passage isn't talking about medical science or engineering or anything like that.

Edited June 5, 2023 by BeyondET

[Mr. M]

14 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

It wasn't knowledge or science. Just a couple of translations use the word science instead of knowledge. The passage isn't talking about medical science or engineering or anything like that.

So you don't think there was any sciences in Greek society that influenced the thinking of those Greeks who were hearing the Message? Doesn't the scientific methodology trace it's origins at least to Greek investigations? Did the Greek intelligentsia mock Paul's teaching of the Resurrection based solely on philosophical or religious grounds, or did their education include the sciences of the day? 

Acts 17:

18 Then certain Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him. And some said, What does this babbler want to say? Others said, He seems to be  proclaiming foreign gods, because he preached to them Jesus and the resurrection.

32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, while others said, We will hear you again on this matter. 33 So Paul departed from among them. 34 However, some men joined him and believed, among them Dionysius the Areopagite, a woman named Damaris, and others with them.

Edited June 5, 2023 by Mr. M
spelling

[Deborah_]

56 minutes ago, Mr. M said:

So you don't think there was any sciences in Greek society that influenced the thinking of those Greeks who were hearing the Message? Doesn't the scientific methodology trace it's origins at least to Greek investigations?

Greek 'science' was based on reasoning. That worked well for mathematics, but not so well for physics and chemistry.

Modern science is based on observation and, above all, on experiment. It really didn't get going until the 18th century. Consequently our understanding of the world is very different from that of the Greeks. For example, they believed that there were just four 'elements': earth, air, water and fire. We have a whole periodic table of elements (and with a very different definition of what an element is!) There really is no comparison.

But you're right in that their willingness to hear the Gospel was influenced by their prior beliefs. That's been the same in every age; the prior beliefs may differ, but the end result is always the same.

Edited June 5, 2023 by Deborah_

[AnOrangeCat]

52 minutes ago, Mr. M said:

So you don't think there was any sciences in Greek society that influenced the thinking of those Greeks who were hearing the Message? Doesn't the scientific methodology trace it's origins at least to Greek investigations? Did the Greek intelligentsia mock Paul's teaching of the Resurrection based solely on philosophical or religious grounds, or did their education include the sciences of the day? 

I definitely feel like the ideas of science and philosophy are included under the umbrella of knowledge. The sort of things that were known by the learned people of the day. Proverbs 3:5 tells us to trust in God rather than to rely on our own understanding. Understanding is clearly intended to be interpreted as a broad spectrum of human knowledge. I get a feeling of similar intent with the knowledge/science referenced in I Timothy.

[Mr. M]

15 minutes ago, Deborah_ said:

Greek 'science' was based on reasoning. That worked well for mathematics, but not so well for physics and chemistry.

Greek science still in application.

https://www.livescience.com/58839-archimedes-principle.html

One of his inventions was the Archimedes screw. This device uses a corkscrew with a hollow tube. When the screw turns, water is pulled up the tube. It was originally used to empty sea water from a ship's hull. It is still used today as a method of irrigation in developing countries, according to the Archimedes Palimpsest.

[Mr. M]

2 minutes ago, AnOrangeCat said:

I definitely feel like the ideas of science and philosophy are included under the umbrella of knowledge. The sort of things that were known by the learned people of the day. Proverbs 3:5 tells us to trust in God rather than to rely on our own understanding. Understanding is clearly intended to be interpreted as a broad spectrum of human knowledge. I get a feeling of similar intent with the knowledge/science referenced in I Timothy.

Yes, it is difficult to imagine Greek thinkers rejecting the idea of being raised from the dead strictly on philosophical grounds!