What if Christ had not died?

[Classik]

Hey Classik,
Yes, Satan probably thought he triumphed over Christ. But Christ had no sin in Him, therefore Satan couldn't hold Him.

1Co 15:55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
1Co 15:56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.
1Co 15:57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

And He hates us for it. More than ever.

Anyway,
If He hadn't died then that man would not have been The Christ. But prophecy will be fulfilled. If it wasn't that man then rest assured Christ still would have come to fulfill the prophecies.

Splendid!
He thought he defeated Christ.
It's very funny how Christ ended the devils victory party. :D

 

[Potluck]

Splendid!
He thought he defeated Christ.
It's very funny how Christ ended the devils victory party. :D

And started ours. ;)
Thing is though is that Satan still feeds on the flock. He'll take as many of us as he can down with him.
Those that think it's all a game or a sham will hate Satan for deceiving them or allowing their pride to deceive themselves. Either way they'll hate him for it. And Satan will hate them right back.

 

[jasoncran]

classick i will do better then i will point to the oral tradition of the jews that wrote the book as lead by god.

and well if one wants to know what hebrew does say in the original tounge of beer sherit(genesis in hebrew) . one must go to the jews themselves.

they say and still claim per chabad.org(consertive judaism) that its meant to be literal. my tanakh claims as such.

if its not then the whole story fails as that is how it was passed to moses! of course it takes faith to believe that.

 

[Ace1234]

Good thinking, Ace.
Well, the bible says nothing about other people created. And science has proved controvercial on the issue of the age of earth.
I don't know where to find this thread you are talking about...and heaven forgive me for going off the topic (perhpas our moderators could move it or merge this with that thread...or even begin a new one).
To me, it makes more sense to say Adam and his honey only existed, and we are their progeny.
People in those days had long lives, they lived close to a thousand years. Belief me, a lot happens in a hundred year period...in a thousand year period what would you expect?
Take your own family as an example.
For 100 yrs @ least, your family or generation has been in existence. You don't and can't know all of them. They are so many. Assuming we move all of your family member, uncles, aunts, cousins, nieces, nephews etc (use a 100 yr period) to Nou Camp - you'd be floored at the number You have got a rich assembly of fans. Assuming you don't know them, and they have spread out into the hiddden chambers of this great stadium, one day you would leave your chamber, go round the stadium and discover other of your relatives whom you don't know. Don't you think you could long to marry one of them and raise a family.
After 500 yrs what would you expect? What would happen after a thousand years? Sandro Rosel would have to expand that stadium - otherwise it would collapse. Sandro Rosel ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ell_-_2010.jpg/200px-Sandro_Rosell_-_2010.jpg ) ( http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_FC_Barcelona ) ( http://fcbarcelona.com)
---
and when Cain said, 'If people see me...' Believe me, the people in the stadium whom I believe (you) have seen/discovered (and you know with time they'd multiply more), whom you never realise are your own blood, are great enough in number to justify the 'if' of the Old Testament.
(())
Even in your own family, Ace, you have cousines, aunts and uncles with different characters. This could make you say: these people and their way of life...And Cain never knew them, and he said, 'if people...' (People = with different characters, strangers who were his own blood etc)
Just a picture

Well, I'm certainly no expert on the complete history and science of man and his beginnings. No doubt science is controversial on the age of the earth, universe and humanity, but all science still believes it's millions of years old.

I don't believe man evolved from another species, but certainly man evolved within his species. We much remember creation stories became ingrained in Christian Dogma before the invention of the sciences. In days of yore before science, tales, traditions and folklore explained what they couldn't understand.

Certainly tens of thousands of family members could've been born out of the linage of Adam and Eve the first few hundred years, but not enough to explain the numbers existing around the world around 6000 years ago, millions of
people. The bigger problem is dating known humanity, the Great Andamanese, a group of tribes migrated from Africa about 75,000 years ago to the Andaman islands ,probably known as the earliest groups to migrate, others migrated to
colonize Indonesia and Australia. Over the next 50,000 years human migration went in all directions, Not to debate or argue more primitive man that has been on the earth for over 200,000 years as a basic developed human.

We know the earliest people were black and as they migrated north into colder climates skin became paler the further north. On average it takes about 50 generations under the right conditions for skin pigment to go from black to white.
Seems the Hebrews were probably into 25 generations out of Africa.
Many tribes such as the Hmong have detailed genealogies more detailed than the Hebrews going back 15,000 years, so the issue of Adam again is dating.

Many feel that if Adam and Eve aren't the first two people, then the rest of the bible falls apart, I find that silly. I certainly think they existed, but were not
even the first Hebrew people, but they are highlighted and given special interest because of the connection to God and the linage of Christ. Certainly if we believe in Christ, we must accept God formed a special relationship through them.

Gen's chapter 2-4 give us many clues as does the first 5 generations of Adam, these were farmers, they tilled, they breed cattle in herds, they had musical instruments such as harps and lyres, they built cities, had education systems, all supposing developed in the first 1000 years of mans beginnings?

We know it took thousands of years for these technologies to develop, many by tribes of people and long existed before the dating of Adam and Eve.

 

[Classik]

Well, I'm certainly no expert on the complete history and science of man and his beginnings. No doubt science is controversial on the age of the earth, universe and humanity, but all science still believes it's millions of years old.

I don't believe man evolved from another species, but certainly man evolved within his species. We much remember creation stories became ingrained in Christian Dogma before the invention of the sciences. In days of yore before science, tales, traditions and folklore explained what they couldn't understand.

Certainly tens of thousands of family members could've been born out of the linage of Adam and Eve the first few hundred years, but not enough to explain the numbers existing around the world around 6000 years ago, millions of
people. The bigger problem is dating known humanity, the Great Andamanese, a group of tribes migrated from Africa about 75,000 years ago to the Andaman islands ,probably known as the earliest groups to migrate, others migrated to
colonize Indonesia and Australia. Over the next 50,000 years human migration went in all directions, Not to debate or argue more primitive man that has been on the earth for over 200,000 years as a basic developed human.

We know the earliest people were black and as they migrated north into colder climates skin became paler the further north. On average it takes about 50 generations under the right conditions for skin pigment to go from black to white.
Seems the Hebrews were probably into 25 generations out of Africa.
Many tribes such as the Hmong have detailed genealogies more detailed than the Hebrews going back 15,000 years, so the issue of Adam again is dating.

Many feel that if Adam and Eve aren't the first two people, then the rest of the bible falls apart, I find that silly. I certainly think they existed, but were not
even the first Hebrew people, but they are highlighted and given special interest because of the connection to God and the linage of Christ. Certainly if we believe in Christ, we must accept God formed a special relationship through them.

Gen's chapter 2-4 give us many clues as does the first 5 generations of Adam, these were farmers, they tilled, they breed cattle in herds, they had musical instruments such as harps and lyres, they built cities, had education systems, all supposing developed in the first 1000 years of mans beginnings?

We know it took thousands of years for these technologies to develop, many by tribes of people and long existed before the dating of Adam and Eve.

Thanks again.
our Geographical locations kind of account for the whitness or blackness of our skin colors (melanin pigment stuff).
And how does is account for the people with frog nose, gigantic nose, peg nose etc(just kidding)
The reason I don't believed God created another man/woman outside Adam and Eve is:
Adam and Eve only lived in the garden of Eden. Where did the other people live?
Adam and Eve sinned! These other people did not sin - then (if they existed) they should be perfect human beings, and should God punish these people who did not sin?
Christ reconciled us with God. These other people (if they exist in the world today) do not need Christ! They are sinless...
(perhaps we need a new thread)

 

[Ace1234]

Thanks again.
our Geographical locations kind of account for the whitness or blackness of our skin colors (melanin pigment stuff).
And how does is account for the people with frog nose, gigantic nose, peg nose etc(just kidding)
The reason I don't believed God created another man/woman outside Adam and Eve is:
Adam and Eve only lived in the garden of Eden. Where did the other people live?
Adam and Eve sinned! These other people did not sin - then (if they existed) they should be perfect human beings, and should God punish these people who did not sin?
Christ reconciled us with God. These other people (if they exist in the world today) do not need Christ! They are sinless...
(perhaps we need a new thread)

We actually have a good idea where Adam and Eve lived due to the rivers mentioned in Gens. The Euphrates and Tigres connect and goes into the Persian Gulf, satelite mapping actually shows other rivers connected there at that time. The area or garden they lived is now most likely underwater in the Persian Gulf. The bible says Adam and Eve lived in the garden in the land of Eden. However, notice the other rivers flow around other lands while they lived in the garden, such as Havilah which contained gold and herbs. The fact that is contained gold as value shows that man had progressed. We have the land of Cush, which was the area of northern Africa, within present-day Egypt, Sudan and South Sudan. The Hebrews had specific names for the lands around them, when called the "land of something or the other" it meant it was a land of people. Obvious they knew much about the lands around them, the value of gold, herbs, etc...and probably traded with all these others in other lands. If one thing we get from the story is this family of Hebrews had some problems or issues that caused them to have to move from the area known as the garden.

Remember, they were removed from the garden after sinning. Why we have no mention of children born while they were in the garden, we must assume they had them. Once out of the garden, they produced offspring, etc...and probably lived then in modern day southern Iraq and mixed with others.

Gens 2..
10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12(The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.


It becomes difficult, but when one uses even the bible we have clues of other peoples and land that hand long existed, add that to science that shows us the larger part of the world was long populated by this time.

Again, Gens. was written about 1500 BC and in many ways the stories of Gens mimmick the "Epic of Gilgamesh" written about 2100BC. In fact, the flood story in Gens almost seems to be 99% copied from Gilgamesh, as well as much of the creation and fall accounts of man and given a hebrew twist. That's why even in the fundy bible school I attended long ago taught us to use principles to study the bible to understand and seperate facts and poetic renderings.

Again, if you take Gen literal with every point, you must ignore science and the historical records and writings of all the many others that lived then. All peoples had fall, sin, flood, accounts. I see it as nothing more than man trying to explain his fallen nature, not literal events of man eating fruit, etc.. I think "tree's" of life or knowledge are metaphors to explain a greater truth, but that's the point in the end....just as Christ used parables to explain greater truths. Man was never perfect, never immortal, never like God, but man did obtain knowledge as he evolved, becoming more evil and greedy as the earth populated.

 

[Mike]

As if he is a kind/interesting fellow?
He spends every possible second of the day mocking christianity and fighting to condemn many.
The success of the cross is his first mockery.
Or would I say, 'Hi, devi', long time no see. How are things with you?'
I know he is reading this thread.

Classik, I don't mean to derail your thread, and I really don't mean to be snide when I ask: Can you think of any model in the Bible of mocking the devil or being flippant with him. I'm just thinking no child of God should provoke the evil one. He has no power over Christ, but he is no one to dismissed by us as a joke.

Be blessed, brother!

 

[Classik]

Classik, I don't mean to derail your thread, and I really don't mean to be snide when I ask: Can you think of any model in the Bible of mocking the devil or being flippant with him. I'm just thinking no child of God should provoke the evil one. He has no power over Christ, but he is no one to dismissed by us as a joke.

Be blessed, brother!

You make me laugh!
Please help me draft an apology letter for the devil
What did Elijah do to the prophets of Baal? Who is that god?
We don't wrestle against flesh and blood - we wrestle against what?
....
The draft, please.

 

[Classik]

You make me laugh!
Please help me draft an apology letter for the devil
What did Elijah do to the prophets of Baal? Who is that god?
We don't wrestle against flesh and blood - we wrestle against what?
....
The draft, please.

He did not fear God. He looked HIM in the face and said, 'You are dethroned - I want YOUR position.' And Mike wants people to show mercy, and be servile towards the devil.
He saw Christ and said: 'If you are the SON of GOD...command these stones...':angry
...Or perhaps vengeance is the LORD's

 

[jasoncran]

We actually have a good idea where Adam and Eve lived due to the rivers mentioned in Gens. The Euphrates and Tigres connect and goes into the Persian Gulf, satelite mapping actually shows other rivers connected there at that time. The area or garden they lived is now most likely underwater in the Persian Gulf. The bible says Adam and Eve lived in the garden in the land of Eden. However, notice the other rivers flow around other lands while they lived in the garden, such as Havilah which contained gold and herbs. The fact that is contained gold as value shows that man had progressed. We have the land of Cush, which was the area of northern Africa, within present-day Egypt, Sudan and South Sudan. The Hebrews had specific names for the lands around them, when called the "land of something or the other" it meant it was a land of people. Obvious they knew much about the lands around them, the value of gold, herbs, etc...and probably traded with all these others in other lands. If one thing we get from the story is this family of Hebrews had some problems or issues that caused them to have to move from the area known as the garden.

Remember, they were removed from the garden after sinning. Why we have no mention of children born while they were in the garden, we must assume they had them. Once out of the garden, they produced offspring, etc...and probably lived then in modern day southern Iraq and mixed with others.

Gens 2..
10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12(The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.


It becomes difficult, but when one uses even the bible we have clues of other peoples and land that hand long existed, add that to science that shows us the larger part of the world was long populated by this time.

Again, Gens. was written about 1500 BC and in many ways the stories of Gens mimmick the "Epic of Gilgamesh" written about 2100BC. In fact, the flood story in Gens almost seems to be 99% copied from Gilgamesh, as well as much of the creation and fall accounts of man and given a hebrew twist. That's why even in the fundy bible school I attended long ago taught us to use principles to study the bible to understand and seperate facts and poetic renderings.

Again, if you take Gen literal with every point, you must ignore science and the historical records and writings of all the many others that lived then. All peoples had fall, sin, flood, accounts. I see it as nothing more than man trying to explain his fallen nature, not literal events of man eating fruit, etc.. I think "tree's" of life or knowledge are metaphors to explain a greater truth, but that's the point in the end....just as Christ used parables to explain greater truths. Man was never perfect, never immortal, never like God, but man did obtain knowledge as he evolved, becoming more evil and greedy as the earth populated.

gee if i believed the science and what is says when theres no empiracism then what is it? faith!

no man is evil since day one.

greek thinking! our faith isnt blind its based on what we exepercience. God reveals himself to us and then we know he is real! if god cant tell us how it went down then why bother with the bible of christianity and its predessor the tanakh?

might have, inference isnt science.

i have dropped a pen , we know it will fall and did fall. cant say that with evolution nor old earth.

we can only observe now and what we can deduce.

ask yourself this how does a dinosaur bone that is exposed to the elements fossolise when theres no burial and blood is found in it and yet its 70 million years old?

not only that skin is found as well. hmm presumption indeed

 

[Mike]

And Mike wants people to show mercy, and be servile towards the devil.

I'm not sure how you concluded that I said this. I don't know where this comes from, Classik. There is no biblical model that we can find that mocks the devil, calls him prodding names and invites the attention of evil. We need to rebuke him in the Name of Jesus and always be on guard. I'm not concerned about showing him mercy. I just don't think it's wise to provoke him.

Lean on the Lord to fight that battle in your stead.

 

[Classik]

(All characters are now bold:dunno)

I was just kidding when I said:

And Mike wants people to show mercy, and be servile towards the devil.

I'm not sure how you concluded that I said this. I don't know where this comes from, Classik.

I was kidding, I believe you know.
...
Elijah and the prophets of Baal: you didn't comment here, Mike

 

[Ace1234]

gee if i believed the science and what is says when theres no empiracism then what is it? faith!

no man is evil since day one.

greek thinking! our faith isnt blind its based on what we exepercience. God reveals himself to us and then we know he is real! if god cant tell us how it went down then why bother with the bible of christianity and its predessor the tanakh?

might have, inference isnt science.

i have dropped a pen , we know it will fall and did fall. cant say that with evolution nor old earth.

we can only observe now and what we can deduce.

ask yourself this how does a dinosaur bone that is exposed to the elements fossolise when theres no burial and blood is found in it and yet its 70 million years old?

not only that skin is found as well. hmm presumption indeed

I'm losing you or missing what you're getting at. Empiricism suggest we use scientific experience and factual eviidence over traditions or ideas, it is part of the faith process and as you state faith need not be blind. We build our faith using sources and tools, some prefer many, some can operate on blind faith. Each much work out his own faith. Faith in itself is just a level of belief.

I wouldn't say man is evil since his conception, simply man isn't God, so he was never a perfect human, like angels he obviously was created flawed, in that he wasn't born perfect or immortal as some suggest.

Even if you take the fall story literal you can see Adam and Eve were fallen creatures and knew right from wrong before they ate. They were told not to eat and obeyed God. Notice before Eve ate she was able to be tempted. When Satan told her she could be like God, before she ate we see in her jealousy, lust, she wanted to be like God, she already had a fallen nature. It was her lust, greed and pride that made her want to eat of the fruit. How could one even hold Eve accountable if she didn't know right from wrong, if she didn't have some understanding of what she was doing? It's obvious she knew what she was doing, just like when Satan became jealous and wanted to be like God, she did also, before she ate....that's a fallen nature already.

The tree of knowledge wasn't evil, it was knowledge, it's what one does with that knowledge that makes it good or evil. If you take it literal, then we accept that eating fruit somehow gave them knowledge that God had hidden from them.
Again, I don't take it as a literal event, but common poetic comparisons to explain the fall of man, much like Christ used parables. Every tribe of people on the earth had such stories then, study some of them....interesting stuff.

Every bible school I know from the most fundy ones to more liberal ones understand the bible is many layers and must be studied from many aspects, so it's studied using principles, the ones I recall we were taught to use were,

Metaphorical
Linguistic
Allegorical
Historic
Literal
Cultural

Obvious some biblical issues are easy to seperate. We accept Christ death on the cross as a literal event, etc..However the Hebrews loved to use metaphors, poetic renderings, parables, one must study from many angles to understand what is being taught in each instance.

God didn't tell us what went down, man did, we must use our faith and study to conclude what scripture is trying to tell us through men, based on how they understood things 1000's of years ago. The men that wrote scripture had lil to no scientific learning, so they taught using mostly poetic ideas, metaphors, parables, comparisons, etc.. Today, we simply have more tools of understanding than people did 5000 years ago. For thousands of years religion taught the world was flat, that the sun rotated around the earth, myths ruled over science. As science progressed, scientist were persecuted by the church, some tortured and killed. However slowly, the church couldn't ignore science and slowly accepted most sciences.

The age of the earth, you won't find one credible scientist secular or christian that doesn't believe the earth is millions of years old, including fossils, etc...but those points you mentioned are another debate, but your questions have easy answers.

 

[Ace1234]

Since I'm bored today I'll give you an example of principle study of coming to a conclusion. I like many was taught young in a baptist church that during the time of Noah the entire earth was flooded and all people killed but Noah and his family, plus the animals Noah saved. However, older and studying history and science question were posed.

If you take the literal interpretation of the Bible, the worldwide flood occurred in the year 2348 BC. Supposedly, the only humans to survive the flood were members of Noah’s own family, who rode in the ark with Noah and the animals. However, we know through detailed dated writings of the Tigris-Euphrates Valley Civilization (in the Middle East), the Nile Valley Civilization (in Egypt), and the Aegean Civilization (in Greece) maintained uninterrupted written historical records extending before, throughout, and following the year 2348 BC. Their written chains of history were unbroken by the flood. Peoples of these vast civilizations failed to notice their own destruction? Would you ignore these 1000's of dated records that exist today? Would you state they all these civilizations got together and lied and faked all these documents?

Do I believe a flood happened, certainly, many other tribes gave us flood stories of about the exact same time, they're six well known flood stories of what many consider the "Near East Flood", most written before Moses account.
Some brief info in you want to read it.

"Of the six surviving versions of the Ancient Near East flood story, the Epic of Atrahasis is the most explicit about the nature of the flood. According to Atrahasis III,iv,6-9 "Like dragonflies they [dead bodies] have filled the river. Like a raft they have moved to the edge [of the boat]. Like a raft they have moved to the riverbank."
Centuries later, an editor of the Epic of Gilgamesh XI, replaced the word "river" with the word "sea", thus turning the river flood into an ocean deluge. We can see the mythmaker's hand at work here. The editor copied the Atrahasis flood story word-for-word into the Epic of Gilgamesh, but the editor made several changes. He changed the line in Atrahasis "Like dragonflies they have filled the river" and substituted "Like the spawn of fish they fill the sea" in Gilgamesh XI."

We have exact measurement of the flood, Genesis 7:20 has the water rising only 15 cubits (22 feet): Fifteen cubits defines the magnitude of the flood. Certainly not deep enough to be a large flood, but even recently we've seen what 22 ft of flood water can do when it comes in land. Factually, it does seem a large local flood took place, but certainly not the world, because we have historical documented evidence that most of the world went about business as usual.

So, do I conclude Moses was a liar, no. Do I believe he was being literal...no. I believe he was telling of an old story already known, but telling it from the Hebrews perspective. I'm sure to all the different tribes during this flood, it seemed their entire world was flooded. Like all tribes with different beliefs in God, some good people survived, those that died had to be evil. We still think much like this today, if something bad happens to someone then God must be getting them for evil. Certainly Moses and other authors added lore and some poetisim to explain God in this disaster as all flood stories did.

Ending, the story is that, a story of Moses, containing historic facts with a mix of allagorical thinking to explain how they believed God was involved. I highly think God saw all the people of the world evil, probably a few million children lived then, I doubt God needed to drown them for being evil. In biblical times all people believed God was behind every event, so they needed to explain how they felt he was. We do much the same today during natural disasters.

We had major tornadoes hit us this year killing hundreds, some crawled out of the rubble stating only God saved them, why other people died. I highly doubt God was up there steering tornadoes around doling out life and death, killing some kids here, yet saving sinners here. We live on a natural cruel earth and it seems God let's it do it's own thing.

 

[Free]

The tree of knowledge wasn't evil, it was knowledge, it's what one does with that knowledge that makes it good or evil. If you take it literal, then we accept that eating fruit somehow gave them knowledge that God had hidden from them.
Again, I don't take it as a literal event, but common poetic comparisons to explain the fall of man, much like Christ used parables. Every tribe of people on the earth had such stories then, study some of them....interesting stuff.

If we take it literally, we don't take it to mean that the Fruit gave them knowledge, it's the fact that they disobeyed God.

For thousands of years religion taught the world was flat, that the sun rotated around the earth, myths ruled over science. As science progressed, scientist were persecuted by the church, some tortured and killed. However slowly, the church couldn't ignore science and slowly accepted most sciences.

Just a correction. There is a very common half-truth in there. The idea of geocentricity was first proposed by Aristotle, iirc. As such, it was believed prior to Christianity and was the reigning secular paradigm as well. Those such as Galileo faced immense pressure from both the Church and those outside that Church, which itself contributed to the pressure from the Church. The Church was trying to maintain it's agreement with science in this area, not go against it.

 

[Ace1234]

If we take it literally, we don't take it to mean that the Fruit gave them knowledge, it's the fact that they disobeyed God.



Just a correction. There is a very common half-truth in there. The idea of geocentricity was first proposed by Aristotle, iirc. As such, it was believed prior to Christianity and was the reigning secular paradigm as well. Those such as Galileo faced immense pressure from both the Church and those outside that Church, which itself contributed to the pressure from the Church. The Church was trying to maintain it's agreement with science in this area, not go against it.

Yes, they disobeyed, but either they were robots with no level of emotion, no understanding of right or wrong or good and evil, yet God held them accountable.
Wouldn't seem fair to hold people accountable for acts when they had no understanding of what they were doing, eh. However, Eve clearly shows she knew just what she was doing and that she had a fallen nature already, she lusted for the power of the fruit and willfully ate it.

The church at best did a poor job promoting and agreeing with science, sorry, that's just a fact. Yes, they slowly came around, but I stated such.

You should know back then there was no real in or outside of the church, there were protestants and catholics. Certainly, the leaders of the catholic church brought forth decrees and judgments, but the people outside the church only rose up because of the church. Both groups rose up against poor Gal...

"Galileo were solemnly declared under sanction of the highest authority in the Church, ``contrary to the sacred Scriptures,'' ``opposed to the true faith,'' and ``false and absurd in theology and philosophy'' - to say that such declarations are ``provisory'' is to say that the truth held by the Church is not immutable; from this, then, the apologists retreated."

Yes, the RCC later back off Gal, stating his heresay was more disrespect to the Pope, more than his teachings..., but we know better, they backed off because of the proof of science.

They even threatened to torture him at one time.

 

[Free]

Yes, they disobeyed, but either they were robots with no level of emotion, no understanding of right or wrong or good and evil, yet God held them accountable.
Wouldn't seem fair to hold people accountable for acts when they had no understanding of what they were doing, eh. However, Eve clearly shows she knew just what she was doing and that she had a fallen nature already, she lusted for the power of the fruit and willfully ate it.

No, this in no way "clearly shows she knew just what she was doing and that she had a fallen nature already." Eve gave into temptation, nothing more. And, yes, it is quite fair for Adam and Eve to be accountable for disobeying a direct command from God. It was that very act of rebellion that gave them knowledge of evil. That they didn't know what it was before is irrelevant.

The church at best did a poor job promoting and agreeing with science, sorry, that's just a fact. Yes, they slowly came around, but I stated such.

You should know back then there was no real in or outside of the church, there were protestants and catholics. Certainly, the leaders of the catholic church brought forth decrees and judgments, but the people outside the church only rose up because of the church. Both groups rose up against poor Gal...

"Galileo were solemnly declared under sanction of the highest authority in the Church, ``contrary to the sacred Scriptures,'' ``opposed to the true faith,'' and ``false and absurd in theology and philosophy'' - to say that such declarations are ``provisory'' is to say that the truth held by the Church is not immutable; from this, then, the apologists retreated."

Yes, the RCC later back off Gal, stating his heresay was more disrespect to the Pope, more than his teachings..., but we know better, they backed off because of the proof of science.

They even threatened to torture him at one time.

I don't think you understood my post. Geocentricity was the reigning understanding of the solar system, both inside and outside the church. My only point was that science also taught geocentricity. When Galileo proved otherwise, it was not just the church which didn't at first accept it, it was the greater scientific community as well.

So, in this example, the church was very much in agreement with science and remained in agreement as science changed it's views.

 

[Classik]

:dunno :shocked :bigsneeze
:bicker BTT

 

[jasoncran]

thats the problem you dont think man was evil in the garden so you have to eisiegis.

its we fit our views to the bible not the other way around.

and free is right the jews under the persian empire and also being back in the city they lost wouldnt ally themselves with a greek who the enemy!

im going from the jewish perspective that predates the church by millenia! and the church recieved it from that and christ said nothing to change what the jews said or believe on genesis.

 

[Ace1234]

No, this in no way "clearly shows she knew just what she was doing and that she had a fallen nature already." Eve gave into temptation, nothing more. And, yes, it is quite fair for Adam and Eve to be accountable for disobeying a direct command from God. It was that very act of rebellion that gave them knowledge of evil. That they didn't know what it was before is irrelevant.


I don't think you understood my post. Geocentricity was the reigning understanding of the solar system, both inside and outside the church. My only point was that science also taught geocentricity. When Galileo proved otherwise, it was not just the church which didn't at first accept it, it was the greater scientific community as well.

So, in this example, the church was very much in agreement with science and remained in agreement as science changed it's views.

You forget the church held great authority over the scientific community. When men like Gal stepped over those lines it did cause great conflict among all groups because they feared being persecuted against by the church. Certainly simple sciences were accepted by the church, it's when they stepped into unknown realms that may conflict with held doctrines it became a strong issue. Let's face it, back then few were willing to stand against the church leadership as it mean torture or death.