temporal1 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 10:08 pm
Life on earth did not begin with Jesus Christ.
1) Yes it did!
For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 2 Cor. 2:16
2) However, I think I know what you meant. He came into a fallen world and would affect people of different cultures, right?
Jesus came to offer salvation to the fallen world.
He did not come to “nothingness” on earth. The world He met, full of human reasoning and human law, was too much like today’s world. Shouldn’t we be doing better with what He gave us?
3) Yes, but are you trying to make a point about "aletheia" here?
3) Thanks, I'll try to take a look at them later. Harvard and Yale, wow! Must be heady stuff! (and my brain is already tired tonight.)
1) Yes.
2) A very fallen world.
3) Not about alethia, i’m just reading+learning from you+Franklin. i enjoy Franklin’s pov, it’s different for me.
4) i mostly added these just to further think about part of the general world history Jesus met.
i’m thinking of beginning the Yale lectures again, i might be able to figure out where i left off. i was going through them slowly, as i tend to, kind of savoring as i went. i have not begun the Harvard series. i think i found the Yale series more approachable, less formal, than Harvard’s, for a layperson like me. my memory is not what it used to be. (that’s not all bad, some things are better forgotten.)
mostly, i didn’t want to disturb your thread. believe it or not.
0 x
Most or all of this drama, humiliation, wasted taxpayer money could be spared -
with even modest attempt at presenting balanced facts from the start.
Neto wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 6:28 pm
The other question or disagreement deals with the Why question - Why did they stop using God's Name, when He clearly says repeatedly that "This is my name, and by this name the ethnic peoples of the earth will know me." I personally suspect that their reason was not so holy as that "The Name is so holy, that we dare not speak it". I think that it is more likely that just as they would swear by the temple, but forbid to swear by the gold of the temple, it was a way to (in their minds) avoid using the Name in vain, while still doing the same swearing.
Sorry I haven't been able to add anything to this. You might just be right here regarding the why question.
As for the name, I think it was directly addressed to the Israelites (Exodus 3:15) not necessarily to the "ethnic peoples," or am I wrong about that?
Neto wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 6:28 pm
The other question or disagreement deals with the Why question - Why did they stop using God's Name, when He clearly says repeatedly that "This is my name, and by this name the ethnic peoples of the earth will know me." I personally suspect that their reason was not so holy as that "The Name is so holy, that we dare not speak it". I think that it is more likely that just as they would swear by the temple, but forbid to swear by the gold of the temple, it was a way to (in their minds) avoid using the Name in vain, while still doing the same swearing.
Sorry I haven't been able to add anything to this. You might just be right here regarding the why question.
As for the name, I think it was directly addressed to the Israelites (Exodus 3:15) not necessarily to the "ethnic peoples," or am I wrong about that?
My understanding is that God first revealed his name to Moses, at the "burning bush" event. (Moses then used it freely in earlier historical accounts, which gives the impression that it was already known to, say Abraham, etc.) But that is (as far as I can recall w/o going back & re-reading it all) not in conversations, such as we have in Moses' confrontations with the Pharaoh of Egypt. That's one thing that really sounds weird, the way Pharaoh asks "Why should I fear the LORD?" I remember being really confused about that (having read it often in the KJV). It makes a lot more sense when one realizes that Moses told him that Yahweh said so-and-so, and so he comes back with this sarcastic rhetorical question, meaning "I have no reason to fear your god, this one you call 'Yahweh'. He is nothing to me." But He DOES say later that this is the Name by which He will be known to the peoples. (I can't pull up a reference - I'm bad with remembering the 'addresses'.)
0 x
Congregation: Gospel Haven Mennonite Fellowship, Benton, Ohio (Holmes Co.) a split from Beachy-Amish Mennonite.
Personal heritage & general theological viewpoint: conservative Mennonite Brethren.
Today's scientistic skeptics insist that knowledge can only be gained by experimental methods. If an experiment is testable and repeatable, and the results are always similar, we can say we have gained some knowledge.
I just realized that one of the conditions of knowledge is that it be "verifiable" too. Spiritual truth is considered nothing more than "opinions" by modern scientistic ideologues because they say it is not "verifiable." This is not entirely true. God's truth can be "tested" and verified by experience to those willing to put their faith in God's promises. Those who do and have discovered the truth can speak to one another confidently about those truths in peaceful dialogue. Of course, to a person who is unable, or pretends to be unable, to have faith, or to be open to the experience, what can science say? This science (in the classical Christian tradition) can only speak to those who do have faith, or who are at least willing to try.
Addendum II
Just to confuse matters even more I looked up the etymology of "truth." Guess what it means?
"faith, faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty; veracity, quality of being true; pledge, covenant"
