Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine and St. Thomas: Masters of Theology
- Thread starter AuphirahQueen
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I'm not going to address the rest of your post, because frankly, I believe it would go in one eye and out the other. But I will say this.
I believe Paul's testimony - I am Christian, or identify myself as such. But I also believe real-time evidence, studies done in this age that is right before my eyes. Proof by forensics that innocent people have been given death penalty because of a witness' faulty memory, for example.
Change blindness, memory bias, flashbulb memories, and all this other psychobabble that shows that our brains are not tape recorders. Things happen, and we process it according to previous experience - it is filtered, and what is meaningful in our mind is put on the shelf long term and altered in some way. I know, because I've developed a certain memory of writing something this way... I read it several years later and found my memory to not reflect exactly what's there, and even contradicted it in context. (I try to keep a journal.)
Unless you want to assume that the anicients had superior brains, you have to understand that there are possiblities that there are not so much malicious error, as there is bias and that you don't have the whole story from Paul's vision alone. If you want to look through Paul's eyes and only his (that is, his writings that made it into the NT, and even some of those are highly doubted to have been written by him), then that's your affair.
But it is a very narrow way of looking at the world and you are going to push so many away or miss so many opportunities because you just can't find it in yourself to think any other way. You will not be able to relate to people, and thus not help them much less witness to them. If you approach the world in just one way, then you will only see one type of result.
In the case of ancient texts, you are guessing based on evidence that is literally thousands of years old, and far removed from their original context. I could write here "my husband is hot." Do you think that at every point in history it would've been understood that I thought him attractive? Some people would think he was having a fever, if they depended on those words alone and ignored context. Words, and their meaning change. Because words change, so would the ideas that are shaped by the words.
There's more than one way to skin a cat, they say, and there's more than one way to view Christ. And suppose psychology progresses and prove these things the norm (already on its way), and some Christians still refuse to believe it possible that the authors they claim are "just men" (but somehow they are immune to psychological/memory error that everyone is prone to)...these men (well those who interpret the text) pose exclusive views in such a way that doesn't speak to the whole world, then perhaps Christians could be labeled as those who refuse to believe what is right before them through the telescope. Not a faltering label, so I'll spare it.
Want to claim that on faith? Great! That's fine. Claim it as fact? Expect resistance, because fact is somethingthat is firmly established, and can be observed by all. And of course, you could then say the resisitence is persecution and blindness - that's faith as well.
I believe Paul's testimony - I am Christian, or identify myself as such. But I also believe real-time evidence, studies done in this age that is right before my eyes. Proof by forensics that innocent people have been given death penalty because of a witness' faulty memory, for example.
Change blindness, memory bias, flashbulb memories, and all this other psychobabble that shows that our brains are not tape recorders. Things happen, and we process it according to previous experience - it is filtered, and what is meaningful in our mind is put on the shelf long term and altered in some way. I know, because I've developed a certain memory of writing something this way... I read it several years later and found my memory to not reflect exactly what's there, and even contradicted it in context. (I try to keep a journal.)
Unless you want to assume that the anicients had superior brains, you have to understand that there are possiblities that there are not so much malicious error, as there is bias and that you don't have the whole story from Paul's vision alone. If you want to look through Paul's eyes and only his (that is, his writings that made it into the NT, and even some of those are highly doubted to have been written by him), then that's your affair.
But it is a very narrow way of looking at the world and you are going to push so many away or miss so many opportunities because you just can't find it in yourself to think any other way. You will not be able to relate to people, and thus not help them much less witness to them. If you approach the world in just one way, then you will only see one type of result.
In the case of ancient texts, you are guessing based on evidence that is literally thousands of years old, and far removed from their original context. I could write here "my husband is hot." Do you think that at every point in history it would've been understood that I thought him attractive? Some people would think he was having a fever, if they depended on those words alone and ignored context. Words, and their meaning change. Because words change, so would the ideas that are shaped by the words.
There's more than one way to skin a cat, they say, and there's more than one way to view Christ. And suppose psychology progresses and prove these things the norm (already on its way), and some Christians still refuse to believe it possible that the authors they claim are "just men" (but somehow they are immune to psychological/memory error that everyone is prone to)...these men (well those who interpret the text) pose exclusive views in such a way that doesn't speak to the whole world, then perhaps Christians could be labeled as those who refuse to believe what is right before them through the telescope. Not a faltering label, so I'll spare it.
Want to claim that on faith? Great! That's fine. Claim it as fact? Expect resistance, because fact is somethingthat is firmly established, and can be observed by all. And of course, you could then say the resisitence is persecution and blindness - that's faith as well.
Last edited:
Jamie26301,
Saint Paul was not influenced by greek philosophers. He grew up as a very devote Jew (he was a Pharisee) and after his conversion he gained a deeper understanding of the Messiah, the temple, the kingdom of God than the Jews. But that deeper understanding has nothing to do with the greek philosophy, but with Jesus Christ Himself.
Saint Paul was not influenced by greek philosophers. He grew up as a very devote Jew (he was a Pharisee) and after his conversion he gained a deeper understanding of the Messiah, the temple, the kingdom of God than the Jews. But that deeper understanding has nothing to do with the greek philosophy, but with Jesus Christ Himself.
Arians are not in agreement with Jn 1:1, 13 and are, therefore, wrong.
Nowhere does the NT present the Messiah as two persons.
The Nestorians are not in agreement with "Do not go beyond what is written" (1Co 4:6) and
are, therefore, wrong, preferring their man-made doctrine rather than the Biblical command.
You did not answer whether you believe it according to its words understood in the light of the whole NT.
Nowhere does the NT present the Messiah as two persons.
The Nestorians are not in agreement with "Do not go beyond what is written" (1Co 4:6) and
are, therefore, wrong, preferring their man-made doctrine rather than the Biblical command.
You did not answer whether you believe it according to its words understood in the light of the whole NT.
Above all that, I believe Jesus' testimony that he would empower the apostles to recall and understand all things correctly (Jn 14:26, 16:13-15; Lk 24:48-49).
Doubted by whom? . . .Those who don't really know, understand or believe them, who label themselves Biblical "scholars" without even knowing the material they discuss.
I've read enough of them to know what I am talking about regarding them.
Paul's writing are a seamless garment to those who know them well, no interlopers there.
Well, it seems your prognostication is not born out in fact here.
And may I never see the world in other than the eyes of the Scriptures.
You're slam up against the core of the matter.
The Bible can be neither proven nor disproven.
You either believe the avowed eye-witness testimony of the NT, or you don't.
I do.
Your claims against it are as much a matter of faith as are my claims for it.
Without the witness of the Holy Spirit within your born-again spirit convincing you of its truth,
it is impossible for you to either truly understand or to believe the Bible.
I have overwhelmingly convincing and unseatable internal evidence of its veracity which you do not have.
And there is no way you can get here from there without the new birth.
It's not necessary to my belief in the Bible that others agree with the fact that I do.
The U.S. Constitution allows me the freedom to do so without their permission.
Ain't freedom great!
Doubted by whom? . . .Those who don't really know, understand or believe them, who label themselves Biblical "scholars" without even knowing the material they discuss.
I've read enough of them to know what I am talking about regarding them.
Paul's writing are a seamless garment to those who know them well, no interlopers there.
Well, it seems your prognostication is not born out in fact here.
And may I never see the world in other than the eyes of the Scriptures.
You're slam up against the core of the matter.
The Bible can be neither proven nor disproven.
You either believe the avowed eye-witness testimony of the NT, or you don't.
I do.
Your claims against it are as much a matter of faith as are my claims for it.
Without the witness of the Holy Spirit within your born-again spirit convincing you of its truth,
it is impossible for you to either truly understand or to believe the Bible.
I have overwhelmingly convincing and unseatable internal evidence of its veracity which you do not have.
And there is no way you can get here from there without the new birth.
It's not necessary to my belief in the Bible that others agree with the fact that I do.
The U.S. Constitution allows me the freedom to do so without their permission.
Ain't freedom great!
Last edited:
Yes. It comes from people who interpret his writings, not from Paul himself. One thing that differentiate the christian church from heresies is that the christian church has a global perspective on things while the heresies focus on one aspect (in detriment of the big picture) and say that only that one aspect os the truth.
Take, for instance, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. A lot of christians see it only as a penal substitution and take it completely out of its context. For instance, the user Elin send me to read some ch. in Romans so that I understand the atonement. But, in order to understand the atonement you have to read all the New Testament, not just some chapters. The history of humanity reaches its climax in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, at the cross. Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world because He liberates us from sin, evil and death. Some people believe He liberates us from His Father (as if the God the Father is the source of evil and sorrow, and not our sin).
Take, for instance, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. A lot of christians see it only as a penal substitution and take it completely out of its context. For instance, the user Elin send me to read some ch. in Romans so that I understand the atonement. But, in order to understand the atonement you have to read all the New Testament, not just some chapters. The history of humanity reaches its climax in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, at the cross. Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world because He liberates us from sin, evil and death. Some people believe He liberates us from His Father (as if the God the Father is the source of evil and sorrow, and not our sin).