Christian Forums

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • We stand with Ukraine. Please consider supporting Ukraine through a qualified organization.
  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Historical reliability

brother Paul

Member
Christian
Yes
Messages
1,359
Joined
Apr 10, 2014
I most certainly asked it in the OP: How do we decide what is reliable ancient history? Many accept something as historical without asking further questions. That's not how historians work, whether investigating Benjamin Franklin, Captain James Cook, what happened in World War I, or Jesus of Nazareth.

Oz

No! In the OP you no way asked how "ancient historians determined" anything and the question you did ask I answered in post #33.

It is true however that some accept things as historical without asking further questions (agree this is sad). I also see a second problem...SOME people refuse to apply actual critical thinking and believe others who make up ever newer criticisms (not the same)..
 

brother Paul

Member
Christian
Yes
Messages
1,359
Joined
Apr 10, 2014
No! In the OP you no way asked how "ancient historians determined" anything and the question you did ask I answered in post #33.

It is true however that some accept things as historical without asking further questions (agree this is sad). I also see a second problem...SOME people refuse to apply actual critical thinking and believe others who make up ever newer criticisms (not the same)..

And Irenaeus also says in Book V chapter 6 "For by the hands of the Father, that is, by the Son and the Holy Spirit, man, and not [merely] a part of man, was made in the likeness of God." Thereby equating all three with God. So in one it appears his thinking is binatarian if one reads not all that he wrote but here we see three hypostases of one God.

He also mentions of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and also mentions "the Spirit of God" and that we are the temple of God wherein the Spirit dwells and so on...in the early church the "persons" were not thought of as we understand persons (separate unrelated beings) but as persona (hypostases) of the ONE AND ONLY YHVH.
 
Last edited:

OzSpen

C F Martin D28 acoustic guitar
Member
From
Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
5,833
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
No! In the OP you no way asked how "ancient historians determined" anything and the question you did ask I answered in post #33.

It is true however that some accept things as historical without asking further questions (agree this is sad). I also see a second problem...SOME people refuse to apply actual critical thinking and believe others who make up ever newer criticisms (not the same)..

Paul,

Context. Context. Context.
context-clipart-put-context-d-words-button-understand-meaning-white-to-illustrate-need-to-message-communication-46745288.jpg

In the OP, I wrote: 'How do we decide what is reliable ancient history? Many accept something as historical without asking further questions. That's not how historians work, whether investigating Benjamin Franklin, Captain James Cook, what happened in World War I, or Jesus of Nazareth'.

Please interpret me according to my intended meaning, which was 'how historians work' in determining criteria for historicity. 'How historians work' includes ancient historians.

See my reply to you at #35.

Oz
 

OzSpen

C F Martin D28 acoustic guitar
Member
From
Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
5,833
Joined
Jun 13, 2014
And Irenaeus also says in Book V chapter 6 "For by the hands of the Father, that is, by the Son and the Holy Spirit, man, and not [merely] a part of man, was made in the likeness of God." Thereby equating all three with God. So in one it appears his thinking is binatarian if one reads not all that he wrote but here we see three hypostases of one God.

He also mentions of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and also mentions "the Spirit of God" and that we are the temple of God wherein the Spirit dwells and so on...in the early church the "persons" were not thought of as we understand persons (separate unrelated beings) but as persona (hypostases) of the ONE AND ONLY YHVH.

You state that Irenaeus's statement, 'For by the hands of the Father, that is, by the Son and the Holy Spirit' equates 'all three with God'. That might be what you think it means, but it is not in the plain reading of the text.

Language such as 'the Spirit of God' and 'we are the temple of God wherein the Spirit dwells and so on' do not confirm the deity of the Holy Spirit.

You know that I accept the Holy Spirit is God (see my evidence in #35.

images


Oz
 

brother Paul

Member
Christian
Yes
Messages
1,359
Joined
Apr 10, 2014
Paul,

Context. Context. Context.
context-clipart-put-context-d-words-button-understand-meaning-white-to-illustrate-need-to-message-communication-46745288.jpg

In the OP, I wrote: 'How do we decide what is reliable ancient history? Many accept something as historical without asking further questions. That's not how historians work, whether investigating Benjamin Franklin, Captain James Cook, what happened in World War I, or Jesus of Nazareth'.

Please interpret me according to my intended meaning, which was 'how historians work' in determining criteria for historicity. 'How historians work' includes ancient historians.

See my reply to you at #35.

Oz

Since I am not psychic I cannot read one's mind and sadly am stuck only by going on what they actually say with their actual words.
 

brother Paul

Member
Christian
Yes
Messages
1,359
Joined
Apr 10, 2014
You state that Irenaeus's statement, 'For by the hands of the Father, that is, by the Son and the Holy Spirit' equates 'all three with God'. That might be what you think it means, but it is not in the plain reading of the text.

Language such as 'the Spirit of God' and 'we are the temple of God wherein the Spirit dwells and so on' do not confirm the deity of the Holy Spirit.

You know that I accept the Holy Spirit is God (see my evidence in #35.

images


Oz

We are the Temple of God (the place where God dwells)

The Holy Spirit dwells in us (the Temple)

Hence the Spirit is God

The hands of the Father (God's means of operating in Creation) are the Son and the Holy Spirit...thus these are all God.

The Father being YHVH (God) uncreated, unheard and never seen...the Son (Word) beng YHVH uncreated, but seeable and hearable, and the Spirit being YHVH unvceated, and unseeable, but hearable and experienced. The Son proceeds from the Father and the Spirit from the Father and the Son but there is only one God.
 
Top