The way it is expressed looks a lot like John was trying to express a truth that believers would recognize, but which would likely be missed by those who do not know the truth. The early church latched onto Platonic views by the early 2nd century, Hellenistic Judaism, which seems to have vanished very quickly after the 1st Jewish War also relied on Platonic views. Is this coincidence or is there a conceal connection. Much of what Paul and John say would fit with a concealed connection. As well as something that early Christianity wanted to keep concealed from the Romans.
Apologetics: witnessing to atheists
- Thread starter GWH
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The way it is expressed looks a lot like John was trying to express a truth that believers would recognize, but which would likely be missed by those who do not know the truth. The early church latched onto Platonic views by the early 2nd century, Hellenistic Judaism, which seems to have vanished very quickly after the 1st Jewish War also relied on Platonic views. Is this coincidence or is there a conceal connection. Much of what Paul and John say would fit with a concealed connection. As well as something that early Christianity wanted to keep concealed from the Romans.
B
Blue155
Guest
I would be interested in your explanation of just what Paul meant in 2 Tim :15 also. You do realize that there is NO CERTAINTY as to what Paul meant as Paul invented the key term rather than using the previously recognized term. But again, as with 1 John 5:8, there might be a hint of something that needed concealed from the Romans, and just another coincidence, these two things that might need to be concealed would seem to be closely related and might also link to other parts of the NT and why portions were written as they were written.
I didn’t say it reads or means ‘they are one.’ What do you understand the Greek phrase to mean - literally - before the shift into history, philosophy, allegory, theory & speculation?
BDAG provides reference for the same phrase without the article under this heading:
b. in contrast to the parts, of which a whole is made up...Also εἰς τὸ ἕν 1J 5:8 (Appian, Iber. 66 §280 ἐς ἕν=together, as a unity). εἰς ἕν J 11:52 (cp. 1QS 5, 7).
Based upon this, the 3 (masc pl) [witnesses} are into the one (neuter sing) - into unity - into agreement (figurative).
This doesn't seem that tough.
Most of the trinitarian issue has to do with v.7 - as you likely know - which looks to be added.
What do you consider to be non-contradiction? If all religions have, for one reason or another, have distorted one or another aspect of ultimate reality, the issue could seem to be immaterial. Looking at Nicaea gives evidence that Christianity might well have sold out on some points. There is other evidence of other incentives (like the outcome of the 1st Jewish War) for Christianity to have adjusted its message also. But tradition insists that nothing like that could happen, not because of the 1st Jewish War or the events surrounding the Council of Nicaea, or any of the other things that might have occurred and been buried. Nothing to see, just move on and believe what we tell you is the official line of tradition.
B
Blue155
Guest
B
Blue155
Guest
The shift into history connects to something to be kept secret from Rome. The shift into philosophy has to do with how to interpret the term "spirit". The sequence of listing the three specifically distinguishes from the traditional ordering of blood and water with its water and blood. I only know of one thing together as a unity, as you cited, and that is the Shroud of Turin, an object that the Romans would be interested in possessing if it was not under the protection of a god, and if the god in question had allowed their temple to be destroyed, that god's protection was nothing to worry about.
And before you cite the 1989 carbon dating, I trust that you are aware that the review of the raw data from that experiment that was finally released in the past 10 years, indicates that there is at best a 5% chance that the carbon dating is accurate.
And before you cite the 1989 carbon dating, I trust that you are aware that the review of the raw data from that experiment that was finally released in the past 10 years, indicates that there is at best a 5% chance that the carbon dating is accurate.
Depending on how one defines the terms, yes. In a physical sense people can be dead, while in a spiritual sense they are alive. If that is not true, then Christianity and eternal life are not true. But there is ample evidence that physical death and eternal life appear to be both true.
B
Blue155
Guest
When one says dead, they are meaning physically. Kaput. Gone. Dead as a doormat. So, is it possible for someone to be both dead and alive at the same time?
B
Blue155
Guest
B
Blue155
Guest
The answer to that question is a resounding “No.” If someone is dead as a doormat, and the deceased is on the way to the morgue or on the way to the graveyard to be buried, it’s not possible for them to be alive at the exact same time they are dead. That would violate the law of non-contradiction, which states that opposites cannot both be true at the same time, in the same way. There is no middle ground.
2 + 2 =4
2 + 2 ≠ 5, 6 3, etc etc.
“A” cannot be “non-A”.
When applied to world religions, they cannot all be true at the same time, in the same way.
I am an agnostic into at least these questions:
- Does there exist a God ?
- If there exists a God, what properties has this God ?
- Do we humans have a free will?
- Is there something called an "objective moral" ?
- And finally : Is Ananas (pineapple) accepted on a pizza ?
I just ask you folks.
- Does there exist a God ?
- If there exists a God, what properties has this God ?
- Do we humans have a free will?
- Is there something called an "objective moral" ?
- And finally : Is Ananas (pineapple) accepted on a pizza ?
I just ask you folks.
B
Blue155
Guest
1. Yes.
2. When you think of a Being who has the attributes that people call God, what comes to mind?
3. Yes.
4. Thankfully, that’s not objective ;-)
The evidence from physics and cosmology indicate a creator, although the nature of said creator is unclear. The "Big Bang" implies a creation, thus a creator and the existence of this universe argues against an infinite number of universes as there would need to be an infinite number created before this specific universe, so it would never come to be. The "Fine Tuning" of this universe, where for multiple measurements a very slight change, perhaps even out at the 20th decimal, would render the universe inhospitable for life as we know it. Other small variations might have the universe fail to expand as it has but rather collapse within seconds of the initial event or else expand too rapidly for matter to form. Biology and biochemistry also suggest a deity via reviewing the incredible complexity of the cell. There are no plausible development steps. RNA and DNA might form at random in the proper conditions, but without a cell to protect them they would breakdown rapidly. DNA cannot replicate without RNA. Both DNA and RNA need to proper enzymes, and there are a sufficiently large number that it is highly improbable that they all occur by accident, something on the order of 10 to the 60th against or even higher. Godel's "proof" of God does require a theistic god, much like described in the Bible, but it includes the assumption that God would be a positive entity and that weakens it in the opinion of some people. There is reportedly an argument being developed from the paranormal that would require a theistic God using both experimental evidence and personal experiences, but I do not think it is formally finished just yet.
That should cover your first two queries, at least as best as I can in a short space. As for objective morality, games theory has weighed in on that issue and determined that there is a sound objective basis for moral behavior.
With regards to pizza, it depends on what else is on the pizza besides pineapple.
Blue....
I am not going to get into a discussion with you tonight about this or that. In fact, I'm a bit tired now and from Norway it's 06:00 so you understand.... *gasp*
However, I have to state from the deepest of my heart, the most profound of my spirit and soul, a matter of life and death, a divine question. Which I have thought so much about, and where my feelings and soul and heart and the rational part of my brain are just confirmed into a higher meaning and into this very important matter of life :
Pineapple on pizza tastes good ! GOOD !
I fell into thoughts....
Isn't that the same with christianity....?
It depends on what else in on the christian pizza... I mean, on the the christian package you more or less have to accept?