No, its like saying if the creator of the car did not make it to fly we will never see it in the sky an neither will the creator, even if he is infinite.
Hats off to your thinking ability in spotting false logic/analogy.
No, its like saying if the creator of the car did not make it to fly we will never see it in the sky an neither will the creator, even if he is infinite.
Hats off to your thinking ability in spotting false logic/analogy.
This comment makes no sense!Yes, but you'd have to concede, there is nothing to go back to and this is a new train of thought in theology, or possibly an offshoot from somewhere.
I wouldn't care where they came from. Their irrational and therefore wrong, it doesn't matter where they came from.You'd also have to figure out where the influences came from since it couldn't have been Greek.
I don't care about commentaries over and above the Scripture itself and sound reason. I do not make decision about what I believe based on someone else's opinion unless they can establish that opinion as truth with Scripture and sound reason.(how could you not be interested in commentaries? I love commentaries, please tell me you have commentaries. I think I saw commentaries on Enyart's Battle Royale, You have to have commentaries. Come on Clete, tell me you have at least one)
Go away now. PLEASE!
Hey Lonnie.
I disagree, like I was telling baloney, the ancient Hebrew's concept of time wasn't like the greeks, and even if it were, so what? They weren't the most God fearing people through out most of their history. They followed other gods all the time..
Lets just stick to what the Bible tells us about God, not what the hebrews said.
It's a contradiction to believe that the future activity of a finite (limited to present activity only) being is knowable even to God who created him that way. When you accept contradictions your faith becomes irrational. If this is the kind of faith you want to have that's fine with me, but then don't accuse me of "faulty logic" when you have abandoned "logic" altogether in order to believe this, hypocrite.
No, its like saying if the creator of the car did not make it to fly we will never see it in the sky an neither will the creator, even if he is infinite.
Yes, but you'd have to concede, there is nothing to go back to and this is a new train of thought in theology, or possibly an offshoot from somewhere.[/qutoe]
This comment makes no sense?
How would OV have anything to go back to if the OT scholars have been wrong from the beginning? Nobody ever interpreted scripture correctly? It's my turn, I'm not sure what you are saying. ?
Lon, previous: What else would there to be to go back to except the Bible and sound reason?
Clete, reply: I wouldn't care where they came from. Their irrational and therefore wrong, it doesn't matter where they came from.
This is truly a point where we can appreciate our perspectives that really do speak to the differences. Irrational or not, I am influenced by long held traditions of interpretation. I'm just not that confident in my reasoning, which is sad because I've got a killer IQ score.
I don't care about commentaries over and above the Scripture itself and sound reason. I do not make decision about what I believe based on someone else's opinion unless they can establish that opinion as truth with Scripture and sound reason.
Good, I'm exactly the same way, but maybe I'm a bit more impressed by a good thought. I really appreciate deep thinkers, especially if they can put into words or argument, a belief I've held but not articulated so well. It also helps to support areas of agreement, somebody is better at the language, somebody else is excellent with Church history, and yet another with the cultural context, etc. So while I agree with you, I'm just not an expert in every vantage point in theology. They help, and also give me a check against my own studies.
Are you noticing a pattern here baloney? It has something to do with Scripture and sound reason and not anyone's personal opinions whether they happen to be Jewish, Greek, Polish, German or Japanese. Get it?
That all being said, you are absolutely right, scripture first. Commentaries are a check, and help if we are stuck. I care about checking my theology, so that's the important point. I mean if I didn't check on what the OT theologians believed, after Baloney's post, I'd not have asked then about the greek influence. Commentaries can help, even if you were not to agree with the stance, you can find what someone believed.
Resting in Him,
Clete
This is like saying 'a car cannot fly, so therefore, neither can it's creator.'
The car is wrong, logical, but wrong.
So to summarize, there's no use trying to arrive at some "pure" view of the God of the New Testament by eliminating Greek thought because the New Testament itself is written in the Greek heavily influence through Paul of Tarsus a Hellenized Jew from Asia minor, not mention John Mark and Luke and not to mention the Greek world through the Roman Empire.
The Old Testament has to be read in the light of the New Testament which has Greek influence from the get go.
So your open theism arguments are hooped!
That aboutwraps it up for this thread.
Clete, gravity is subjective. It's relationship that we make with our minds between two or more objects just like most science is subjective.
If God made us finite we cannot have foreactivity.
Let's see if I get this.
In other words if God is in the future 'seeing/knowing' my future actions/decisions, then it follows that I'm there doing/making them. Which begs the question: transcending what?
I'll put my money on "infinite potentiality".
:spam: