Originally posted by RJHindsThis debate illustrates nicely the impossibility of shaking religious belief by using historical evidence and that is not in any case the value of this work. Those who hold to a given belief system are not dependent on that kind of evidence and can normally compartmentalise their information to prevent disturbance.
Where did the pagans get a concept of three? Why not two or four? Where did they get the idea of a God in heaven anyway? What about their belief in a virgin and a son, where did that originate from? Romans 1:20-25 tells us that man from the beginning knew God."... and their foolish hearts were darkened" (verses 25) "they exchanged the truth for a lie, and wo ...[text shortened]... ey still retained some elements of the truth but distorted its meaning and it became lost.
However, for a different set of people who are not committed to a religious belief system, then obviously there is a real need to account for the things set out by religions. After all, no reasonable account of human nature can ignore religious belief and no intelligible account of human history or the history of ideas can discount what is set out.
Hence, for example, to notice the way John's gospel reworks so much that was said centuries earlier by the Stoics is illuminating indeed. Why on earth start a fourth gospel with an assertion that in the beginning was the word and that god was the word? What is the reason for importing the notion of Logos into what appears to be a work of biography? There is nothing in Jewish religious thinking to invite this material. It is evidently addressed to people with some familiarity with Greek philosophy, which of course is not part of the biblical tradition.
Generally, it is interesting and important to investigate the material from which this new religion was constructed and to notice how innovations were often very clearly borrowed. This is not only the case for the content of the new religion but also for its manner of arriving at its formulations and conclusions, which often were very unlike traditional biblical thinking.
However, the point remains. This evidence is not going to shake religious convictions. It does something quite different, which is to satisfy the curiosity and interest of those who are not committed and who are nevertheless motivated to understand (in their own terms).
For the religious, it is important to be well versed in their scriptures, which answer every question (apparently to their satisfaction). For others, it is important to understand the way in which this complex system of ideas was constructed.
Where there can be a clash was pointed out, for example, by Rowan Williams who heads the Church of England. Reviewing quite a good recent book of history about early Christianity, he noted drily that it would cause severe problems for anyone insisting on the literal truth of the bible, something of course that most Christians do not waste their time on.
Originally posted by finneganAnd for the few that do use their time to find the truths in the Bible and the truths from Jesus himself and who he was, it is not always accepted just as he wasn't.
This debate illustrates nicely the impossibility of shaking religious belief by using historical evidence and that is not in any case the value of this work. Those who hold to a given belief system are not dependent on that kind of evidence and can normally compartmentalise their information to prevent disturbance.
However, for a different set of people ...[text shortened]... iteral truth of the bible, something of course that most Christians do not waste their time on.
And these truths unfortunently are not always acceptd by the popular religions.
It's bucks the system and even makes them a little uncomfortable.
Originally posted by galveston75Looks like you all shamed RJ into disappearing.
And for the few that do use their time to find the truths in the Bible and the truths from Jesus himself and who he was, it is not always accepted just as he wasn't.
And these truths unfortunently are not always acceptd by the popular religions.
It's bucks the system and even makes them a little uncomfortable.
Originally posted by galveston75I use the sun to get my directions straight. In the beginning of daylight, I know it is in the east and it is in the west as darkness is beginning. At other times, I am just guessing.
Maybe not. He means well and does have a lot of knowledge but just needs to get his direction straight... 🙂
Originally posted by checkbaiterIf this is your belief, perhaps Islam is better for you than Christianity. Your belief is definitely not Christian. 😏
Yes, I agree, been there done that, I was raised Catholic. I never paid attention to the Trinity. I have found over the years that the explanation usually boils down to this..."The Trinity is not understood by reason nor intellect, it is accepted by faith."
Funny but I found faith comes by hearing the words of God, not by man's doctrines. The doctrine ...[text shortened]... He is God, then it raises a slew of questions with the usual answers that don't make sense.
Originally posted by RJHindsGood stuff
The pagan trinity was comprised of three Gods not one. The Greek triad of Zeus, Athena, and Apollo, the Hindu triad of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva the Egyptian triad of Isis, Horus, and Sub. They were all separate not united as the one God and almost unanimously had a mother involved as in a heavenly family. This was really tritheism, which has more in common ...[text shortened]... s, that mankind had a true knowledge but refused to worship him and sank into idolatry.
Walter Martin was the founder of CRI
Manny
