Where did life begin? (Merged)

[BigO95]

You're missing the point. It was clearly added after the fact. Which is why it's not in the 4th century texts but is in many after. Which further proves it was a later addition.

If something was added after the fact it could easily become present in the majority of texts. Why would you consider a majority to be more important than something closer to the original work (an older text)?

There was made up of over 5000 extant manuscripts of which the King James Bible was translated from. they were copies of the originals because when the originals were worn out to preserve the text from errors, they would use new copies that were very carefully examined and throw away the worn out text so to protect from errors.

 

[BigO95]

Pork rats and lizards are not meats given by God and are never called food.

Slice, no wonder you get moody sometimes, you ain't allowed to eat bacon!

 

[Vol8188]

The Textus Receptus was made up of over 5000 extant manuscripts of which the King James Bible was translated from. they were copies of the originals because when the originals were worn out to preserve the text from errors, they would use new copies that were very carefully examined and throw away the worn out text so to protect from errors.

It's like talking to a wall. Mark 16:9-whatever is reguarded by everyone as a later addition written by a second author.

Do you believe that second author was also devinely inspired? Do you not believe there was a second author?

 

[BigO95]

Besides, have you seen a copy of the originals?

 

[Vol8188]

Besides, have you seen a copy of the originals?

Have you?

 

[BigO95]

It's like talking to a wall. Mark 16:9-whatever is reguarded by everyone as a later addition written by a second author.

Do you believe that second author was also devinely inspired? Do you not believe there was a second author?

How can you be sure that it wasn't in the originals? have you examined the originals? do you know someone who has examined the originals?

 

[BigO95]

Have you?

No, that's the point, but copies of the originals have been carefully examined, hence, Textus Receptus.

 

[BigO95]

I'm out, see yall tomorrow.

 

[Vol8188]

No, that's the point, but copies of the originals have been carefully examined, hence, Textus Receptus.

And in the oldest copies available mark ends at 16:8. That's the entire point. It was added later

 

[Orange_Crush]

*******peter doesn’t understand the vision and then gets the vision explaining it*********

17. Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate,

18 And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there.

19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.

20 Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.

21 Then Peter went down to the men which were sent unto him from Cornelius; and said, Behold, I am he whom ye seek: what is the cause wherefore ye are come?

22 And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee.


*******peter explains the vision to others*******

28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.



Note..it’s not unlawful to keep company with non Jews. That’s tradition added by men. In the vision G-d is using something that is unlawful to point out to peter that adding things to the law is just as bad as taking away.

Imo dietary restrictions are given because eating those things is not healthy. It’s not because G-d doesn’t like the taste of pork. The law was given to be a blessing. Messiah didn’t come to make rats lizards and pork a suddenly healthy alternative.

Saying Peters vision removes dietary restrictions is adding thoughts to scripture that just are not there

Note that I never claimed that Peter didn't say the vision was about people. Just that he never said it wasn't about food. You'll have to show me where he did tyhat, as you claimed.

All the dbl negatives... Let's make it simple.

I agree Peter said the vision was about people. You'll need to show me where he also claimed it wasn't about food, as God initially said it was.

Culturally, one of the things that made it unlawful for a Jew to go into a gentile's house, and a HUGE bar to fellowship, was dietary issues--defiling oneself. Do you think possibly God lifted the dietary laws for Peter when he called Peter to fellowship with Gentiles?

You keep saying that God doesn't change, so the Torah has to still be in effect to please Him. But you seem to ignore all the places in OT where He changed His dealings with man.

The Torah was late to the game, relatively speaking.

As mentioned, the "Law" John was speaking to was in effect with Cain.

Humanity was initially vegetarian by command.

Then they could eat meat.

Then, explicitly to Israel, He gave dietary restrictions.

Then, He told Peter to eat what he would (apparently to open fellowship with Gentiles, whom He was calling them to evangelize.) Peter knew exactly what God was saying at the time He said it, for He argues three times, and God had to chastise him for the argument.

Peter knew exactly what God was doing--in lifting the eating ban--for he then lived "as a Gentile" while among the Gentiles so that Paul had to call him out to his face for doing it in a hypocritical way.

So again... TLDR version... Show me where Peter said the vision wasn't about food. It's not there.

[God said. "Take. Eat. Don't call unclean what I call clean." And I'm adding to scripture what isn't there...

You claim Peter said that the vision *wasn't about food*, while he never claimed that, and you're not adding to scripture what isn't there?]

 

[Orangeslice13]

Note that I never claimed that Peter didn't say the vision was about people. Just that he never said it wasn't about food. You'll have to show me where he did tyhat, as you claimed.

All the dbl negatives... Let's make it simple.

I agree Peter said the vision was about people. You'll need to show me where he also claimed it wasn't about food, as God initially said it was.

Culturally, one of the things that made it unlawful for a Jew to go into a gentile's house, and a HUGE bar to fellowship, was dietary issues--defiling oneself. Do you think possibly God lifted the dietary laws for Peter when he called Peter to fellowship with Gentiles?

You keep saying that God doesn't change, so the Torah has to still be in effect to please Him. But you seem to ignore all the places in OT where He changed His dealings with man.

The Torah was late to the game, relatively speaking.

As mentioned, the "Law" John was speaking to was in effect with Cain.

Humanity was initially vegetarian by command.

Then they could eat meat.

Then, explicitly to Israel, He gave dietary restrictions.

Then, He told Peter to eat what he would (apparently to open fellowship with Gentiles, whom He was calling them to evangelize.) Peter knew exactly what God was saying at the time He said it, for He argues three times, and God had to chastise him for the argument.

Peter knew exactly what God was doing--in lifting the eating ban--for he then lived "as a Gentile" while among the Gentiles so that Paul had to call him out to his face for doing it in a hypocritical way.

So again... TLDR version... Show me where Peter said the vision wasn't about food. It's not there.

[God said. "Take. Eat. Don't call unclean what I call clean." And I'm adding to scripture what isn't there...

You claim Peter said that the vision *wasn't about food*, while he never claimed that, and you're not adding to scripture what isn't there?]

You’re reading into things that are not there.
The vision is about people. Because we’re told it’s about people. If it was about food he would have woken up and the spirit would have told him to eat while he was awake. Instead he’s told it’s about people.

You can kick and scream all you want but it’s jist not there. 😃

 

[Orangeslice13]

You’re reading into things that are not there.
The vision is about people. Because we’re told it’s about people. If it was about food he would have woken up and the spirit would have told him to eat while he was awake. Instead he’s told it’s about people.

You can kick and scream all you want but it’s jist not there. 😃

Traveling so you get little shots instead of the attention it deserves.

Peters vision is a metaphor consistent with the way Messiah taught. The point was people.
You don’t take metaphors and apply them out of context in other places so why do it here. I also have not plucked my eyes out that cause me to sin. Have you? No? Why? Because it’s a metaphor

 

[Burhead]

My personal bias is well documented in these forums. for those of you who don't know, I'm a Conservative religious nut job. I believe G-d created all things billions of years ago and gave it a push. from there everything evolved after it's own kind. My question is for those who come from an opposing view point.
How did life spontaneously start form non living mater?

There are those who believe that life here began out there, far across the universe, with tribes of humans who may have been the forefathers of the Egyptians, or the Toltecs, or the Mayans, that they may have been the architects of the Great Pyramids, or the lost civilizations of Lemuria or Atlantis. Some believe that there may yet be brothers of man who even now fight to survive somewhere beyond the heavens.

 

[SECProudUT]

Absolutely, I believe without a doubt in my mind. He is alive and well in all of creation.

He gave us all a mind, a mind to think freely, A mind to learn with. What we wish to learn and believe in, is of our own choosing.

For those that doubt I shall not follow, for God gave me the strength to resist temptations.

 

[Orangeslice13]

There are those who believe that life here began out there, far across the universe, with tribes of humans who may have been the forefathers of the Egyptians, or the Toltecs, or the Mayans, that they may have been the architects of the Great Pyramids, or the lost civilizations of Lemuria or Atlantis. Some believe that there may yet be brothers of man who even now fight to survive somewhere beyond the heavens.

At a gas station in Atlanta
It’s freaking cold. What the hell happened?


Quoted so I don’t forget to come back and ask a question later.

 

[JHuntVols]

I was using the term being to describe some kind of extant entity or force--something that is.

So with that in mind, the question I've been trying to get an answer to (how do you know there is only one first cause) has seemingly been answered with another assertion (the first cause is pure actuality).

My objection to the argument from necessity was rebutted by the same assertion that you've not even tried to support (God is pure actuality).

I believe the principle of non-contradiction is a very good way to support an argument. As I said earlier, the idea of two Gods, which is defined in AT terminology as pure actuality, is contradictory by definition. It's like asking a geometry person "why can't a triangle have 4 sides" and asking him to "support" his argument.

In AT metaphysics, all contigent beings are a composed of potency and act, which is to say they're a mixture of what it is (act) and what it can be (potency). As Roustabout hinted at earlier in his discussion of nothing creating something, potency cannot cause itself by definition, therefore potency is dependent on act, which is to say act must per se precede potency. This self-contradiction also means the idea of a purely potential being is nonsense, however the logically necessity of act preceding potentialty is the metaphysical basis of the First Cause, which is also the being of pure actuality. Saying that being is both pure actuality and the first cause is saying the same thing for our purposes of this argument. Suffice to say here that the first cause has nothing to do with temporally ordered sequences but that of the necessity of a first cause that each subsequent member in the casual chain derives its casual powers from. Without that first or necessary cause the entire chain falls apart, which is the reason why an infinite regress of causes is impossible in this context.

His argument properly formulated must also result in only one God (read: pure actuality) as to have more than one god would mean that there would be something that must distinguish them. This is impossible as it would mean that one god had an unrealized potential (the "feature" that distinguishes between the two beings), and that is self-contradictory to what a Thomist would term God.

Also, I'm sure I missed some other questions or comments as this thread was merged. I followed the quoted post back to page 156... can't read through 40+ pages of stuff lol.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Now that I’ve had a chance to read the whole conversation here’s the clarification.

This is my statement

And peter said that vision was about people not food.

This is Peters statement.

28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean

 

[Orangeslice13]

There are those who believe that life here began out there, far across the universe, with tribes of humans who may have been the forefathers of the Egyptians, or the Toltecs, or the Mayans, that they may have been the architects of the Great Pyramids, or the lost civilizations of Lemuria or Atlantis. Some believe that there may yet be brothers of man who even now fight to survive somewhere beyond the heavens.

This is an interesting topic but to me just punts the topic further down the line. My follow up would be the same. What were the circumstances that caused non life to become life.

 

[Orangeslice13]

This thread has derailed big time.
I’m still interested in opinions on the OP.
I guess I’m asking more of how it happened and less of who did it.

 

[JHuntVols]

This thread has derailed big time.
I’m still interested in opinions on the OP.
I guess I’m asking more of how it happened and less of who did it.

Evolution vs. ID? Is that what you're looking for?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Now that I’ve had a chance to read the whole conversation here’s the clarification.

This is my statement




This is Peters statement.

28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean

This will be my last post on the subject. You are yet to show where Peter said the vision wasn't about food. You've claimed twice that I am reading things into the text when I am literally taking God at his word, you are claiming Peter said things he didn't say, and then you are reading things *out* of what God said.

Safe travels.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Evolution vs. ID? Is that what you're looking for?

Not really.
I’ll stipulate to evolution as G-ds method. Let’s say G-d did it threw science. How’d He do it?

 

[Orangeslice13]

This will be my last post on the subject. You are yet to show where Peter said the vision wasn't about food. You've claimed twice that I am reading things into the text when I am literally taking God at his word, you are claiming Peter said things he didn't say, and then you are reading things *out* of what God said.

Safe travels.

Seriously Dude.
-Peter has a metaphorical vision
-Peter wakes up and ponders the vision
-people show up.
-the spirit tells him the people are the point.
-Peter says G-d has revealed to me people are all bueno.


It’s not that hard.

Here I’ll edit just for you.


Peter explains the point of the vision was about people. Peter never said anything else about it. Using it to justify eating rats is adding to the opinion given by Peter.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I believe the principle of non-contradiction is a very good way to support an argument. As I said earlier, the idea of two Gods, which is defined in AT terminology as pure actuality, is contradictory by definition. It's like asking a geometry person "why can't a triangle have 4 sides" and asking him to "support" his argument.

In AT metaphysics, all contigent beings are a composed of potency and act, which is to say they're a mixture of what it is (act) and what it can be (potency). As Roustabout hinted at earlier in his discussion of nothing creating something, potency cannot cause itself by definition, therefore potency is dependent on act, which is to say act must per se precede potency. This self-contradiction also means the idea of a purely potential being is nonsense, however the logically necessity of act preceding potentialty is the metaphysical basis of the First Cause, which is also the being of pure actuality. Saying that being is both pure actuality and the first cause is saying the same thing for our purposes of this argument. Suffice to say here that the first cause has nothing to do with temporally ordered sequences but that of the necessity of a first cause that each subsequent member in the casual chain derives its casual powers from. Without that first or necessary cause the entire chain falls apart, which is the reason why an infinite regress of causes is impossible in this context.



Also, I'm sure I missed some other questions or comments as this thread was merged. I followed the quoted post back to page 156... can't read through 40+ pages of stuff lol.

How exactly as two identical "pure actuality" beings contradictory?

 

[JHuntVols]

How exactly as two identical "pure actuality" beings contradictory?

That's because pure actuality is not a being but being itself. This is because God is the only being who essence and existence (being) are identical. To say there exists two of these beings means that its essence is shared across those two beings, which therefore must mean each of these so called beings also share the unique necessity of existing on its own. The very idea of "sharing" inherently means God would merely be one of many beings and not being itself.

As I said earlier, you'd also need a means to distinguish "God 1" from "God 2" otherwise the mere assertion of two such Gods is unintelligible. To distinguish these two beings to point out that one lacks a feature that the other possesses, which is to say that, for example, "God 1" has an unrealized potential (potency) that "God 2" does not. That would be contradictory to the idea of God as pure act, which obviously excludes any potency by definition.