Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Christian chat
LeClerc

Descendants of adam

Hi Leonard and Shaker

I have started another thread here, in response to both of your answers in the http://nglreturns.myfreeforum.org/about4072.html thread, hope that is okay.

Leonard James wrote:
LeClerc wrote:

Do you believe that you are a descendant of man or do you believe that you are a descendant of another species ?

Regards

LeClerc


As Shaker has already answered your question in some detail, I won't repeat it.
If you accepted and knew anything about the theory of evolution you wouldn't have asked the question ... so I assume you refuse to believe it, and that is a brick wall I can do nothing to knock down.  


Shaker wrote:

If I may - the only accurate answer to such a question is to reply: proximately, man, ultimately, another species. Both, in other words.


Interesting, according to Torah, both of you believe you are, proximately, descendants of adam.

LeClerc
Jim

There is no conflict between theistic evolution and the concept of spiritual descent from Adam.
Leonard James

Re: Descendants of adam

LeClerc wrote:


Interesting, according to Torah, both of you believe you are, proximately, descendants of adam.

LeClerc


Not at all. I don't believe that the "Adam" of holy scripts ever existed, so I can hardly consider myself a descendant.

However, if you want to consider me so, feel free.
Shaker

Re: Descendants of adam

LeClerc wrote:
Interesting, according to Torah, both of you believe you are, proximately, descendants of adam.

LeClerc


No. Proximately I'm a descendant of my father and his name isn't Adam. I can't speak for Mr Leonard Senior.

The Torah was written, or perhaps I should say compiled, in a pre-scientific age before an awareness of the fact that the human species evolved from non-human ancestors. Jim has the right of it when he talks about spiritual descent, for those who believe in such concepts.
LeClerc

Re: Descendants of adam

Hi Leonard

Leonard James wrote:
LeClerc wrote:


Interesting, according to Torah, both of you believe you are, proximately, descendants of adam.

LeClerc


Not at all. I don't believe that the "Adam" of holy scripts ever existed, so I can hardly consider myself a descendant.

However, if you want to consider me so, feel free.


These were your words were they not ?

Leonard James wrote:
LeClerc wrote:


Do you believe that you are a descendant of man or do you believe that you are a descendant of another species ?

Regards

LeClerc


As Shaker has already answered your question in some detail, I won't repeat it.

If you accepted and knew anything about the theory of evolution you wouldn't have asked the question ... so I assume you refuse to believe it, and that is a brick wall I can do nothing to knock down.  


And Shaker said
Shaker wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Hi Leonard

Leonard James wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Hi Leonard

Just because you do not believe you are a descendant of adam because you do not believe, as you put it, the Eden story, does not alter the truth of YHWH’s word that you are a descendant of adam.


But you have no way of showing that such words ARE the truth. Don't you see that? It is just something you believe.


Do you believe that you are a descendant of man or do you believe that you are a descendant of another species ?

Regards

LeClerc


If I may - the only accurate answer to such a question is to reply: proximately, man, ultimately, another species. Both, in other words.


Either you agree with Shaker or you don’t.

LeClerc
Shaker

I don't think you're quite grasping the fact that a mythical Adam had nothing to do with anyone or anything, and was incapable of having any literal descendants, because no such individual existed. Nobody is a literal descendant of Adam - that's a pre-scientific mythical tale presumably intended to 'explain' the origins of the human race, but which we now know is false. It's just a story.

If, as Jim has already pointed out, you want to about spiritual descent then that's another matter altogether.
LeClerc

Re: Descendants of adam

Hi Shaker

Shaker wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Interesting, according to Torah, both of you believe you are, proximately, descendants of adam.

LeClerc


No. Proximately I'm a descendant of my father and his name isn't Adam. I can't speak for Mr Leonard Senior.

The Torah was written, or perhaps I should say compiled, in a pre-scientific age before an awareness of the fact that the human species evolved from non-human ancestors. Jim has the right of it when he talks about spiritual descent, for those who believe in such concepts.


Sorry I though you said

Shaker wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Hi Leonard

Leonard James wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Hi Leonard

Just because you do not believe you are a descendant of adam because you do not believe, as you put it, the Eden story, does not alter the truth of YHWH’s word that you are a descendant of adam.


But you have no way of showing that such words ARE the truth. Don't you see that? It is just something you believe.


Do you believe that you are a descendant of man or do you believe that you are a descendant of another species ?

Regards

LeClerc


If I may - the only accurate answer to such a question is to reply: proximately, man, ultimately, another species. Both, in other words.


Regards

LeClerc
Shaker

You're doing so much block quoting that you're not making it at all clear where your confusion lies and where you think Leonard and/or I are contradicting ourselves.
LeClerc

Hi Shaker

Shaker wrote:
You're doing so much block quoting that you're not making it at all clear where your confusion lies and where you think Leonard and/or I are contradicting ourselves.


Sorry, to clarify, you have posted the following, do you agree ?

Shaker wrote:

If I may - the only accurate answer to such a question is to reply: proximately, man, ultimately, another species. Both, in other words. .


Regards

LeClerc
Shaker

Yes, precisely. The answer to your original question, as I said, is 'both,' and is a matter of degree (time, in other words).
LeClerc

Hi Shaker

Shaker wrote:
Yes, precisely. The answer to your original question, as I said, is 'both,' and is a matter of degree (time, in other words).


Yes, agreed ultimately, you have said both, but you have said proximately you are a descendant of man, do you agree ?

Regards

LeClerc
Derek

Shaker wrote:
I don't think you're quite grasping the fact that a mythical Adam had nothing to do with anyone or anything, and was incapable of having any literal descendants, because no such individual existed. Nobody is a literal descendant of Adam - that's a pre-scientific mythical tale presumably intended to 'explain' the origins of the human race, but which we now know is false. It's just a story.

If, as Jim has already pointed out, you want to about spiritual descent then that's another matter altogether.


But you are an atheist. That is what atheist believe. I expect you to say it is a story and that mankind think they know better now. We have a greater knowledge then you have on where we came from. We know different. We have had the truth testified to our souls, by the Holy Ghost, that Adam did exist as the initiator of mankind, as we know him to be today. I class myself as the literal descendant of Adam and Eve. They are the first parents of the human race. I, personally, believe that God created man from the dust of the earth, mixed with a copious amount of DNA, at the same time as the Homo Sapiens population declined and reappeared with a white skull. I believe that everything else was made via abiogenesis, initiated by God, nearly 4 billion years ago.

God shall give unto you knowledge by his Holy Spirit, yea, by the unspeakable gift of the Holy Ghost, that has not been revealed since the world was until now;
Shaker

LeClerc wrote:
Hi Shaker

Shaker wrote:
Yes, precisely. The answer to your original question, as I said, is 'both,' and is a matter of degree (time, in other words).


Yes, agreed ultimately, you have said both, but you have said proximately you are a descendant of man, do you agree ?

Regards

LeClerc

Proximately, indeed yes.
Jim

Eh?
What colour was the skull previously, then?

As for Adam, there is nothing to stop both him and his mate existing.
Even Genesis would suggest that they were not the only humans, in the Fertile Crescent, at the time.
Derek

Jim wrote:
Eh?
What colour was the skull previously, then?

As for Adam, there is nothing to stop both him and his mate existing.
Even Genesis would suggest that they were not the only humans, in the Fertile Crescent, at the time.


A brownie creamie colour

I did not say that they did not coexist.
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
But you are an atheist.

I try to keep it quiet, but yes, I am indeed.
Quote:
That is what atheist believe. I expect you to say it is a story and that mankind think they know better now.

Correct.
Quote:
We have a greater knowledge then you have on where we came from.

Who is this "we"?
Quote:
We know different.

No: you believe differently.
Quote:
I, personally, believe that God created man from the dust of the earth, mixed with a copious amount of DNA, at the same time as the Homo Sapiens population declined and reappeared with a white skull. I believe that everything else was made via abiogenesis, initiated by God, nearly 4 billion years ago.

That's the correct use of the word believe - a personal adherence to something taken to be true but not supported by testable, shareable empirical evidence.
Sebastian Toe

Ralph2 wrote:
I, personally, believe that God created man from the dust of the earth, mixed with a copious amount of DNA, at the same time as the Homo Sapiens population declined and reappeared with a white skull. I;


Just curious,
What do you mean by a 'white skull'?
The bone material is white or something else?

---edit, I see you have answered that- end edit ---

Also 'Homo sapiens' as opposed to 'Homo sapiens sapiens'?
Derek

Shaker wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
But you are an atheist.

I try to keep it quiet, but yes, I am indeed.
Quote:
That is what atheist believe. I expect you to say it is a story and that mankind think they know better now.

Correct.
Quote:
We have a greater knowledge then you have on where we came from.

Who is this "we"?
Quote:
We know different.

No: you believe differently.
Quote:
I, personally, believe that God created man from the dust of the earth, mixed with a copious amount of DNA, at the same time as the Homo Sapiens population declined and reappeared with a white skull. I believe that everything else was made via abiogenesis, initiated by God, nearly 4 billion years ago.

That's the correct use of the word believe - a personal adherence to something taken to be true but not supported by testable, shareable empirical evidence.


The we is LeClerc and myself, and Christians in general. Only thing worth answering really.
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
The we is LeClerc and myself, and Christians in general.

In which case you are in error.
Jim

Er....
Have the colour of human skulls changed significantly in the last million years, pray?
LeClerc

Hi Shaker

Shaker wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Hi Shaker

Shaker wrote:
Yes, precisely. The answer to your original question, as I said, is 'both,' and is a matter of degree (time, in other words).


Yes, agreed ultimately, you have said both, but you have said proximately you are a descendant of man, do you agree ?

Regards

LeClerc

Proximately, indeed yes.


I will repeat my earlier comment.

LeClerc wrote:

Interesting, according to Torah, both of you believe you are, proximately, descendants of adam.

LeClerc


Regards

LeClerc
Derek

Sebastian Toe wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
I, personally, believe that God created man from the dust of the earth, mixed with a copious amount of DNA, at the same time as the Homo Sapiens population declined and reappeared with a white skull. I;


Just curious,
What do you mean by a 'white skull'?
The bone material is white or something else?

---edit, I see you have answered that- end edit ---

Also 'Homo sapiens' as opposed to 'Homo sapiens sapiens'?


Why not research it? May I suggest Origins of Us http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00jjjw4 In which Professor Alice Roberts, an anthropologist, clearly states that the reappearance of Homo Sapiens brought with it a whiter skull. Youtube has the whole seven episodes for you to watch and research. That should wean you off your obsession with posting to me
Shaker

Le Clerc wrote:
I will repeat my earlier comment.


The repetition makes absolutely no sense in light of my previous comments, which are easy to read a couple of pages back and don't need to be repeated.
Derek

Shaker wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
The we is LeClerc and myself, and Christians in general.

In which case you are in error.


Of course
Derek

Jim wrote:
Er....
Have the colour of human skulls changed significantly in the last million years, pray?


The human skull - No. The Apes Skull - No, but the shape has.
Sebastian Toe

Jim wrote:
Er....
Have the colour of human skulls changed significantly in the last million years, pray?


That made me wonder as well.
When you see photographs of old fossils they don't' look white.

A very quick Google for fossil bone colours, suggest that the fossils over time take on the colour of the minerals which make them fossils in the first place

Here is one explanation from the Smithsonian, a very well respected museum.
In fact the world's largest museum and research complex!


This skull didn’t start out black – it was white, like all other bones in living animals. KNM-WT 17000 or the ’Black Skull’ only got its dramatic dark color after millions of years of sitting in a manganese-rich soil and absorbing minerals as it fossilized.


(my bold)
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/knm-wt-17000

Kind of makes sense I suppose?
Jim

I've handled a few skulls in my time.
From Roman back to predynastic Egypt (c 5500 BC)
There is no variation in colour, save that caused by embalming.
I've also seen remainns dating back to c30,000 BC of homo Sapiens.
Again, no variation.
Does that mean Adam was pre-30,ooo BC?
Derek

Jim wrote:
I've handled a few skulls in my time.
From Roman back to predynastic Egypt (c 5500 BC)
There is no variation in colour, save that caused by embalming.
I've also seen remainns dating back to c30,000 BC of homo Sapiens.
Again, no variation.
Does that mean Adam was pre-30,ooo BC?


Prof. Alison Roberts, an anthropologist, has spent her entire career studying this subject every day for many years. Why would you think yourself more qualified then she is. She disagree with you. Just watch the documentary http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00jjjw4 or on youtube called "Origins of Us". I am not an anthropologist or a liar and I have never studied anthropology. I am repeating her words as if she has said them. Don't debate it, watch it and gain some knowledge on it.
Sebastian Toe

Ralph2 wrote:
Jim wrote:
Er....
Have the colour of human skulls changed significantly in the last million years, pray?


The human skull - No. The Apes Skull - No, but the shape has.


So when Professor Alice Roberts, an anthropologist, clearly states that the reappearance of Homo Sapiens brought with it a whiter skull, just how much whiter does she mean if the colour has not changed significantly, or does she mean in skulls older than 1 million years?
Derek

Sebastian Toe wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Jim wrote:
Er....
Have the colour of human skulls changed significantly in the last million years, pray?


The human skull - No. The Apes Skull - No, but the shape has.


So when Professor Alice Roberts, an anthropologist, clearly states that the reappearance of Homo Sapiens brought with it a whiter skull, just how much whiter does she mean if the colour has not changed significantly, or does she mean in skulls older than 1 million years?


Research it. What ever I say will be dissected so just research it. I have given you the links.
Jim

I can't view images on youtube.
I CAN rely on my own experience of handling human remains.
I also rely on evidence from archaeogenetics, and palaeontology.
I've also had meetins with the late Richard Leaky (the greatest palaeontologist in the past century), who, among other things, discovered 'Lucy' in Ethiopia...a very distinctly whiteish skull bearing no real differences in colour (given semi-fossilisation#) from modern homo Sapiens.
Sebastian Toe

Ralph2 wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Jim wrote:
Er....
Have the colour of human skulls changed significantly in the last million years, pray?


The human skull - No. The Apes Skull - No, but the shape has.


So when Professor Alice Roberts, an anthropologist, clearly states that the reappearance of Homo Sapiens brought with it a whiter skull, just how much whiter does she mean if the colour has not changed significantly, or does she mean in skulls older than 1 million years?


Research it. What ever I say will be dissected so just research it. I have given you the links.


I did


This skull didn’t start out black – it was white, like all other bones in living animals. KNM-WT 17000 or the ’Black Skull’ only got its dramatic dark color after millions of years of sitting in a manganese-rich soil and absorbing minerals as it fossilized.

(my bold)
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/knm-wt-17000

the Smithsonian is a world  leading centre for information on fossils.
They have many many people contributing (hundreds if not thousands) who have studied fossils and  spent their entire careers studying this subject every day for many years and it would be surprising if they put out misleading information about bone colour would it not?
Jim

For anyone wishing to look at 'Lucy'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Museum_of_Natural_History

I think there is (or was) an interview with Mary Leaky somewhere online, but I can't find it.
LeClerc

Shaker wrote:
Le Clerc wrote:
I will repeat my earlier comment.


The repetition makes absolutely no sense in light of my previous comments, which are easy to read a couple of pages back and don't need to be repeated.


Maybe the following will help.

Genesis 1
27 So God created man (Hebrew adam) in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bi...n&c=1&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1027

Interesting, according to Torah, both you and Leonard believe you are, proximately, descendants of adam.

Regards

LeClerc
Shaker

Despite repeated attempts at trying to ascertain your meaning, I have absolutely no idea what on earth you're actually trying to say, not least since you show precisely zero sign of reading or at least understanding a word either of us (Leonard and I) has written thus far.

Perhaps if you knew what sort of point you are trying to make and are capable of saying so, others might find it easier to pick up on? If you don't understand the difference between proximate and ultimate, or don't know how speciation works, please just say so. I've tried to answer your questions as clearly as I possibly can.
Sebastian Toe

Ralph2 wrote:
Sebastian Toe wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Jim wrote:
Er....
Have the colour of human skulls changed significantly in the last million years, pray?


The human skull - No. The Apes Skull - No, but the shape has.


So when Professor Alice Roberts, an anthropologist, clearly states that the reappearance of Homo Sapiens brought with it a whiter skull, just how much whiter does she mean if the colour has not changed significantly, or does she mean in skulls older than 1 million years?


Research it. What ever I say will be dissected so just research it. I have given you the links.


I think I will stick to your 15 minute limit for in depth research and not bother trawling through several hours of footage just to find one line, thank you very much.

Did you go through the entire series just to find that one piece of information?
That's quite a bit of dedication for the cause!
LeClerc

Hi Shaker

Shaker wrote:
Despite repeated attempts at trying to ascertain your meaning, I have absolutely no idea what on earth you're actually trying to say, not least since you show precisely zero sign of reading or at least understanding a word either of us (Leonard and I) has written thus far.

Perhaps if you knew what sort of point you are trying to make and are capable of saying so, others might find it easier to pick up on? If you don't understand the difference between proximate and ultimate, or don't know how speciation works, please just say so. I've tried to answer your questions as clearly as I possibly can.


I apologise if I have not explained myself very well.

You have posted

Shaker wrote:

If I may - the only accurate answer to such a question is to reply: proximately, man, ultimately, another species. Both, in other words.


The Hebrew for man, both male and female is adam.

Therefore to rewrite what you have posted using Hebrew for man we have

If I may - the only accurate answer to such a question is to reply: proximately, adam (Hebrew), ultimately, another species. Both, in other words.

Hope that helps.

Regards

LeClerc
cyberman

LeClerc wrote:


The Hebrew for man, both male and female is adam.

Therefore to rewrite what you have posted using Hebrew for man we have

If I may - the only accurate answer to such a question is to reply: proximately, adam (Hebrew), ultimately, another species. Both, in other words.

Hope that helps.

Regards

LeClerc


Yes, that helps. It helps us to understand that you are not interested in dicsussing what people believe to be true, or in discussing evolution, or religion, or scriptures. You are only interested in playing childish word games.

The fact that adam is a loose transliteration of the Hebrew for 'man' does not mean that Shaker means he believes he is descended from Adam.

Are you simply trying to say that the ancient progenitors of the story which come to us via Genesis as the Adam and Eve story meant to refer to humanity as a whole? In which case you could have said that much more clearly. If that is not the case please try to be clear. Give seeming clear a higher priority than seeming clever and you might get somewhere.
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
Yes, that helps. It helps us to understand that you are not interested in dicsussing what people believe to be true, or in discussing evolution, or religion, or scriptures. You are only interested in playing childish word games.

The fact that adam is a loose transliteration of the Hebrew for 'man' does not mean that Shaker means he believes he is descended from Adam.

Are you simply trying to say that the ancient progenitors of the story which come to us via Genesis as the Adam and Eve story meant to refer to humanity as a whole? In which case you could have said that much more clearly. If that is not the case please try to be clear. Give seeming clear a higher priority than seeming clever and you might get somewhere.

I'm not minded to disagree  
LeClerc

Hi Cyberman

cyberman wrote:

Yes, that helps. It helps us to understand that you are not interested in dicsussing what people believe to be true, or in discussing evolution, or religion, or scriptures. You are only interested in playing childish word games.

The fact that adam is a loose transliteration of the Hebrew for 'man' does not mean that Shaker means he believes he is descended from Adam.

Are you simply trying to say that the ancient progenitors of the story which come to us via Genesis as the Adam and Eve story meant to refer to humanity as a whole? In which case you could have said that much more clearly. If that is not the case please try to be clear. Give seeming clear a higher priority than seeming clever and you might get somewhere.


I will try to be clearer in future.

Be assured Cyberman this thread is not about playing childish word games nor about trying to be clever, as you put it.

When one sees or hears the words, Adam and Eve, there is much misunderstanding as to meaning due to the incorrect use of proper names, translation, and transliteration.

The truth is, irrespective of religious beliefs, all human beings are proximately, descendants of man, Hebrew loosely transliterated adam.

So for someone to say they are not descended from man, Hebrew loosely transliterated adam is ignoring the truth. Shaker, Leonard James and I were having a discussion which I hope was beginning to illustrate by example, this important fact.

From reading some of your other posts on this forum you appear to profess to be a Christian and one would assume, follows Christ’s and His Apostles teachings.

Matthew 7
20 Therefore, by their fruits you will know them.

Matthew 15
11 It’s not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come out of your mouth.”

Ephesians 4
29 Don’t use foul or abusive language. Let everything you say be good and helpful, so that your words will be an encouragement to those who hear them.

Ephesians 5
4 Obscene stories, foolish talk, and coarse jokes—these are not for you. Instead, let there be thankfulness to God.

Colossians 3
8 But now is the time to get rid of anger, rage, malicious behavior, slander, and dirty language.

James 1
23 For if you listen to the word and don’t obey, it is like glancing at your face in a mirror.
24 You see yourself, walk away, and forget what you look like.
25 But if you look carefully into the perfect law that sets you free, and if you do what it says and don’t forget what you heard, then God will bless you for doing it.


It is for us to test ourselves to see if we are in the faith.

2 Corinthians 13
5 Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you—unless indeed you fail the test?

Regards

LeClerc
Shaker

LeClerc wrote:
The truth is, irrespective of religious beliefs, all human beings are proximately, descendants of man, Hebrew loosely transliterated adam.

I thought I had said as much - so where, precisely, is your supposed area of disagreement?
Derek

LeClerc wrote:
Hi Cyberman

cyberman wrote:

Yes, that helps. It helps us to understand that you are not interested in dicsussing what people believe to be true, or in discussing evolution, or religion, or scriptures. You are only interested in playing childish word games.

The fact that adam is a loose transliteration of the Hebrew for 'man' does not mean that Shaker means he believes he is descended from Adam.

Are you simply trying to say that the ancient progenitors of the story which come to us via Genesis as the Adam and Eve story meant to refer to humanity as a whole? In which case you could have said that much more clearly. If that is not the case please try to be clear. Give seeming clear a higher priority than seeming clever and you might get somewhere.


I will try to be clearer in future.

Be assured Cyberman this thread is not about playing childish word games nor about trying to be clever, as you put it.

When one sees or hears the words, Adam and Eve, there is much misunderstanding as to meaning due to the incorrect use of proper names, translation, and transliteration.

The truth is, irrespective of religious beliefs, all human beings are proximately, descendants of man, Hebrew loosely transliterated adam.

So for someone to say they are not descended from man, Hebrew loosely transliterated adam is ignoring the truth. Shaker, Leonard James and I were having a discussion which I hope was beginning to illustrate by example, this important fact.

From reading some of your other posts on this forum you appear to profess to be a Christian and one would assume, follows Christ’s and His Apostles teachings.

Matthew 7
20 Therefore, by their fruits you will know them.

Matthew 15
11 It’s not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come out of your mouth.”

Ephesians 4
29 Don’t use foul or abusive language. Let everything you say be good and helpful, so that your words will be an encouragement to those who hear them.

Ephesians 5
4 Obscene stories, foolish talk, and coarse jokes—these are not for you. Instead, let there be thankfulness to God.

Colossians 3
8 But now is the time to get rid of anger, rage, malicious behavior, slander, and dirty language.

James 1
23 For if you listen to the word and don’t obey, it is like glancing at your face in a mirror.
24 You see yourself, walk away, and forget what you look like.
25 But if you look carefully into the perfect law that sets you free, and if you do what it says and don’t forget what you heard, then God will bless you for doing it.


It is for us to test ourselves to see if we are in the faith.

2 Corinthians 13
5 Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you—unless indeed you fail the test?

Regards

LeClerc


 
cyberman

LeClerc wrote:


So for someone to say they are not descended from man, Hebrew loosely transliterated adam is ignoring the truth.


No it isn't. This only means you are wilfully misunderstanding what they mean when they say they are not descended from Adam.

You are pretending to believe that that means they are claiming that they are not descended from men. But in fact you know that it means that they do not consider the individual Adam who appears in Genesis to be a real ancestor.

The fact that the proper name Adam and the Hebrew word for man are linked, does not mean that we cannot separate them. You know that they can talk about one and not mean the other, but you are dishonestly pretending that that is not the case.
Derek

cyberman wrote:
LeClerc wrote:


So for someone to say they are not descended from man, Hebrew loosely transliterated adam is ignoring the truth.


No it isn't. This only means you are wilfully misunderstanding what they mean when they say they are not descended from Adam.

You are pretending to believe that that means they are claiming that they are not descended from men. But in fact you know that it means that they do not consider the individual Adam who appears in Genesis to be a real ancestor.

The fact that the proper name Adam and the Hebrew word for man are linked, does not mean that we cannot separate them. You know that they can talk about one and not mean the other, but you are dishonestly pretending that that is not the case.


Are you sure that you are a Christian? This sounds like an atheist.
The Boyg

Ralph2 wrote:
Are you sure that you are a Christian? This sounds like an atheist.


Really?

Where does he say anything about not believing in God (or any god)?
gone

What would you know about being a Christian, Ralphie?
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
Are you sure that you are a Christian? This sounds like an atheist.

It sounds like someone who knows what they're on about to me.
Derek

The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Are you sure that you are a Christian? This sounds like an atheist.


Really?

Where does he say anything about not believing in God (or any god)?


Well he did say that he is guessing that God exists a couple of times now and now he is questioning the fundamentals of Adam and Eve by saying "But in fact you know that it means that they do not consider the individual Adam who appears in Genesis to be a real ancestor"  Does that not suggest a disbelief in a fundamental  principles  to you?  It does to me,  which is why I questioned him on whether he is a Christian.  I am sure he will log in soon, at which time He can answer the question that I asked him.
cyberman

Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Are you sure that you are a Christian? This sounds like an atheist.


Really?

Where does he say anything about not believing in God (or any god)?


Well he did say that he is guessing that God exists a couple of times now and now he is questioning the fundamentals of Adam and Eve by saying "But in fact you know that it means that they do not consider the individual Adam who appears in Genesis to be a real ancestor"  Does that not suggest a disbelief in a fundamental  principles  to you?  It does to me,  which is why I questioned him on whether he is a Christian.  I am sure he will log in soon, at which time He can answer the question that I asked him.


The answer is yes I am sure I am a Christian.

And saying that Shaker and Leonard don't believe that Adam is their ancestor has nothing at all to do with that, does it?
LeClerc

Hi Cyberman

cyberman wrote:
LeClerc wrote:


So for someone to say they are not descended from man, Hebrew loosely transliterated adam is ignoring the truth.


No it isn't. This only means you are wilfully misunderstanding what they mean when they say they are not descended from Adam.

You are pretending to believe that that means they are claiming that they are not descended from men. But in fact you know that it means that they do not consider the individual Adam who appears in Genesis to be a real ancestor.

The fact that the proper name Adam and the Hebrew word for man are linked, does not mean that we cannot separate them. You know that they can talk about one and not mean the other, but you are dishonestly pretending that that is not the case.


No Cyberman, I understand fully what they mean when they say they believe they are not descended from Adam.

The truth then becomes dependant on what one believes rather than on what the truth actually is.

The truth remains the truth irrespective of how many people believe it.

The truth is they may not believe they are descended from Adam but the truth, irrespective of ones religious beliefs, is that we are all descended from man, Hebrew loosely transliterated adam.

Who gave the male human being, Hebrew loosely transliterated adam, the proper name Adam and when ?

Regards

LeClerc
Shaker

LeClerc wrote:
No Cyberman, I understand fully what they mean when they say they believe they are not descended from Adam.


Why do you seem to have suddenly switched from the use of the word adam (sic; Hebrew for 'man') to Adam (sic), implying a literal single progenitor of the human race?

Quote:
The truth remains the truth irrespective of how many people believe it.

Yes indeed.

Quote:
The truth is they may not believe they are descended from Adam

Who or what is Adam?

Quote:
but the truth, irrespective of ones religious beliefs, is that we are all descended from man, Hebrew loosely transliterated adam.

Only proximately. Not ultimately. There is a difference between the two. Is there where your evident confusion lies?

Quote:
Who gave the male human being, Hebrew loosely transliterated adam, the proper name Adam and when ?

It would appear that you just have, since you can't seem to make up your mind as to whether the word adam [sic] is a Hebrew word roughly transliterated man or a proper name, as in Adam referring to a specific individual male human being (Adam West; Adam Sandler).

Since you're not a regular member of this forum it's not yet clear to me whether you're extremely naive - stupid, some might say - and sincerely believe what you imply or are extremely sly, knowing and cunning in your selective use of linguistic legerdemain. In this regard, based on prior experience, I have reason to suspect conscious and explicit dishonesty on your part, but feel free to prove me wrong.
The Boyg

Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Are you sure that you are a Christian? This sounds like an atheist.


Really?

Where does he say anything about not believing in God (or any god)?


Well he did say that he is guessing that God exists a couple of times now and now he is questioning the fundamentals of Adam and Eve by saying "But in fact you know that it means that they do not consider the individual Adam who appears in Genesis to be a real ancestor"  


Is a belief in a literal Adam and Eve a "fundamental" of Christianity now? Since when?


Quote:
Does that not suggest a disbelief in a fundamental  principles  to you?  It does to me,  which is why I questioned him on whether he is a Christian.  


You said that he "sounds like an atheist".

I asked where he says anything about not believing in God.

You haven't answered that.

I presume that is because you know that he hasn't.
LeClerc

Shaker wrote:


Why do you seem to have suddenly switched from the use of the word adam (sic; Hebrew for 'man') to Adam (sic), implying a literal single progenitor of the human race?


I was quoting the word that Cyberman had used.  If I had changed it from Adam to adam then this would not have been consistent with Cyberman's comment.

Please see where I have previously quoted other posters posts and have left Adam as Adam.


Quote:
Yes indeed.


We are in agreement.


Quote:
Who or what is Adam?


To be consistent with Cyberman’s post, used in the context attached to it by Cyberman.


Quote:
Only proximately. Not ultimately. There is a difference between the two. Is there where your evident confusion lies?


No confusion, that is your opinion, you have already agreed with proximately.


Quote:
It would appear that you just have, since you can't seem to make up your mind as to whether the word adam [sic] is a Hebrew word roughly transliterated man or a proper name, as in Adam referring to a specific individual male human being (Adam West; Adam Sandler).


No Shaker but if it keeps you happy will rephrase the question too, Cyberman, was man, Hebrew loosely transliterated adam ever given a proper name and if so by who and when, and what was that name?


Quote:
Since you're not a regular member of this forum it's not yet clear to me whether you're extremely naive - stupid, some might say - and sincerely believe what you imply or are extremely sly, knowing and cunning in your selective use of linguistic legerdemain. In this regard, based on prior experience, I have reason to suspect conscious and explicit dishonesty on your part, but feel free to prove me wrong.


You are free to have your opinion but when people resort to this sort of reply it is generally because they have lost the argument already.

Regards

LeClerc
Derek

[quote="The Boyg:100140"]

Quote:
[quote="Ralph2:100110"]
The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Are you sure that you are a Christian? This sounds like an atheist.


Really?

Where does he say anything about not believing in God (or any god)?


Well he did say that he is guessing that God exists a couple of times now and now he is questioning the fundamentals of Adam and Eve by saying "But in fact you know that it means that they do not consider the individual Adam who appears in Genesis to be a real ancestor"  

Is a belief in a literal Adam and Eve a "fundamental" of Christianity now? Since when?


Since Adam was created  from the dust of the earth in the image of God.

Quote:
Does that not suggest a disbelief in a fundamental  principles  to you?  It does to me,  which is why I questioned him on whether he is a Christian.  


Quote:
You said that he "sounds like an atheist".

I asked where he says anything about not believing in God.

You haven't answered that.

I presume that is because you know that he hasn't.


It is my opinion,  to which I am entitled  to.
The Boyg

Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:

Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Are you sure that you are a Christian? This sounds like an atheist.


Really?

Where does he say anything about not believing in God (or any god)?


Well he did say that he is guessing that God exists a couple of times now and now he is questioning the fundamentals of Adam and Eve by saying "But in fact you know that it means that they do not consider the individual Adam who appears in Genesis to be a real ancestor"
 

Is a belief in a literal Adam and Eve a "fundamental" of Christianity now? Since when?


Since Adam was created  from the dust of the earth in the image of God.


So you're saying that it is not possible for someone to not believe in a literal Adam and Eve and still be a Christian. How so?

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Does that not suggest a disbelief in a fundamental  principles  to you?  It does to me,  which is why I questioned him on whether he is a Christian.  


You said that he "sounds like an atheist".

I asked where he says anything about not believing in God.

You haven't answered that.

I presume that is because you know that he hasn't.


It is my opinion,  to which I am entitled  to.


But, in the absence of any evidence that he has expressed a lack of belief in God, it appears that "your opinion" is informed by nothing more than a wish to describe Cyberman as sounding like an atheist.
Shaker

LeClerc wrote:
You are free to have your opinion but when people resort to this sort of reply it is generally because they have lost the argument already.

I haven't seen any "argument" mounted as yet, so there hasn't been anything to lose. It's quite clear that you can't make whatever points you doubtless feel you have in a clear and cogent manner. I've commented on this before; so has cyberman.

People also resort to this reply when they're being fed a line of shit, remember, which is what's happening in this case.
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
You said that he "sounds like an atheist".

I asked where he says anything about not believing in God.

You haven't answered that.

I presume that is because you know that he hasn't.

Ah, but you forget that Ralphie has form in this area (as in others, but we'll put that to one side for the nonce). He stated that I'd described Ketty as an atheist; when challenged for evidence of this non-existent statement he retorted that in his opinion I had described her as though she were an atheist, which is a subtle and slippery shift from a putative statement of fact to a much more elusive expression of interpretation. Ralph's last stand, when cornered, is clearly "Well that's my opinion and and I'm entitled to it." This usually only comes about after he has made some pretty concrete, definite and even dogmatic assertions, however.

I'm only surprised that he didn't say first off that cyberman is an atheist and then, when challenged on the point, to wheel out the "Well, in my opinion he talks as though he is one."
cyberman

LeClerc wrote:
Hi Cyberman

cyberman wrote:
LeClerc wrote:


So for someone to say they are not descended from man, Hebrew loosely transliterated adam is ignoring the truth.


No it isn't. This only means you are wilfully misunderstanding what they mean when they say they are not descended from Adam.

You are pretending to believe that that means they are claiming that they are not descended from men. But in fact you know that it means that they do not consider the individual Adam who appears in Genesis to be a real ancestor.

The fact that the proper name Adam and the Hebrew word for man are linked, does not mean that we cannot separate them. You know that they can talk about one and not mean the other, but you are dishonestly pretending that that is not the case.


No Cyberman, I understand fully what they mean when they say they believe they are not descended from Adam.

The truth then becomes dependant on what one believes rather than on what the truth actually is.

The truth remains the truth irrespective of how many people believe it.

The truth is they may not believe they are descended from Adam but the truth, irrespective of ones religious beliefs, is that we are all descended from man, Hebrew loosely transliterated adam.

Who gave the male human being, Hebrew loosely transliterated adam, the proper name Adam and when ?

Regards

LeClerc


Please be kind enough to indulge me with a straightforward and unambiguous answer to this question, LeClerc:

Is it possible (regardless of how factually mistaken you might think them) for a person to both (a) believe that they are descended from human beings and (b) believe that the story of Adam and Eve is not a true story?
LeClerc

Hi Cyberman

cyberman wrote:


Please be kind enough to indulge me with a straightforward and unambiguous answer to this question, LeClerc:

Is it possible (regardless of how factually mistaken you might think them) for a person to both (a) believe that they are descended from human beings and (b) believe that the story of Adam and Eve is not a true story?


It is possible for a person to believe whatever they choose to believe but that is not the issue here, this began with the following post by Leonard James.

Leonard James wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Hi Lexi

Lexilogio wrote:
Since Trents thread was so quickly derailed with insults - lets start again.

What makes a Christian?


A Christian, is a descendant of adam, to whom the Son (Y'shua The Messiah) has chosen to reveal The Father.

Matthew 11
27 “All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

LeClerc


Everybody is a descendant of Adam, if you believe the Eden story. Christians are only those people who do their best to follow the teaching of Jesus, as they understand it.


In reply to my post to Lexi, Leonard James says one is dependent upon the other.

Now Cyberman was man, Hebrew loosely transliterated adam, ever given a proper name and if so by who and when, and what was that name?

LeClerc
cyberman

LeClerc wrote:


Now Cyberman was man, Hebrew loosely transliterated adam, ever given a proper name and if so by who and when, and what was that name?

LeClerc


Haven't got a Scooby what you're on about, mate.

Just tell us what you think the answer is. Stop trying to be cryptic for fuck's sake.
LeClerc

Hi Cyberman

cyberman wrote:
LeClerc wrote:


Now Cyberman was man, Hebrew loosely transliterated adam, ever given a proper name and if so by who and when, and what was that name?

LeClerc


Haven't got a Scooby what you're on about, mate.


What makes you think the human beings in this passage.

Genesis 1 NLT
27 So God created human beings [fn] in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them

Are different from the human beings in this passage.

Genesis 3 NLT
22 Then the LORD God said, “Look, the human beings [fn] have become like us, knowing both good and evil. What if they reach out, take fruit from the tree of life, and eat it? Then they will live forever!”

The Hebrew for both is transliterated adam.

Regards

LeClerc
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
LeClerc wrote:


Now Cyberman was man, Hebrew loosely transliterated adam, ever given a proper name and if so by who and when, and what was that name?

LeClerc


Haven't got a Scooby what you're on about, mate.

Just tell us what you think the answer is. Stop trying to be cryptic for fuck's sake.

That's you knocked off the list for the Ecumenical Endeavours Award 2013  
bnabernard

Was superman a descendent of Adam?

bernard (hug)
bnabernard

Was superman a descendent of Adam?

bernard (hug)
Derek

bnabernard wrote:
Was superman a descendent of Adam?

bernard (hug)


Yes.
LeClerc

Morning Bernie

bnabernard wrote:
Was superman a descendent of Adam?

bernard (hug)


Firstly, please define superman.

Secondly, do you mean adam whose proper name was Chavvah ?

Regards

LeClerc
bnabernard

Hi LC

You certainly have a way with you to explain that bible scholars should not trust what they read, innit.

bernard (hug)
Ketty

bnabernard wrote:
Hi LC

You certainly have a way with you to explain that bible scholars should not trust what they read, innit.

bernard (hug)


Hi Bernie  

It depends who is our Helper and through which lens we're reading - those lenses can't be got at Specsaver.  
LeClerc

Hi Ketty

Ketty wrote:
bnabernard wrote:
Hi LC

You certainly have a way with you to explain that bible scholars should not trust what they read, innit.

bernard (hug)


Hi Bernie  

It depends who is our Helper and through which lens we're reading - those lenses can't be got at Specsaver.  


When you read, ''three days and three nights'' which lens are you reading through and who is your Helper, helping you understand ?

Regards

LeClerc
bnabernard

when you read Adam, who's lens are you reading with?

bernard (hug)
Ketty

I rely on the Holy Spirit to aid my intellect and understanding, and reveal anything that needs to be revealed.  It's through that lens I read the Scriptures.  

Leclerc and Bernie, what lens do you use?
LeClerc

Hi Ketty

Ketty wrote:
I rely on the Holy Spirit to aid my intellect and understanding, and reveal anything that needs to be revealed.  It's through that lens I read the Scriptures.  

Leclerc and Bernie, what lens do you use?


The Ruach HaKodesh of YHWH, in Messiah Y'shua, who guides us into the truth revealed in the Scriptures.

In Pauls letter

1 Corinthians 15 HNV
3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Messiah died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,


Ketty, to which Scriptures was Paul referring ?

Regards

LeClerc
LeClerc

Hi Bernie

bnabernard wrote:
when you read Adam, who's lens are you reading with?

bernard (hug)


In the flesh Bernie, the lens of tradition.

Regards

LeClerc
Derek

Ketty wrote:
I rely on the Holy Spirit to aid my intellect and understanding, and reveal anything that needs to be revealed.  It's through that lens I read the Scriptures.  


         


Mark 11:26

But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.

Matthew 6:14

For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:

Matthew 6:15

But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses

Leviticus 19:18

Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.

1 Peter 4:9

Use hospitality one to another without grudging

Matthew 5

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt alove thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

John 13

34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye alove one another; as I have loved you, that ye also blove one another.

35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have alove one to another.

Matthew 7

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.

30 Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things ashould be done away.

Matthew 19

18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,

34 Wo unto the liar, for he shall be thrust down to hell.
Ketty

Ralph2 wrote:


Right back atcha "Ralph". You're doing satan's thing again - quoting Scripture at people as if it doesn't apply to you.

I can understand though, and in fact you've told us yourself that He eludes you, and that you do not know the Holy Spirit - so it's inevitable that you find the whole idea hilarious.

In Christ Jesus (the real One: I AM - the triune Godhead - God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit) I love you "Ralph" - that's you, not your name or your account.  I pray that one day you will be able to understand that He (the real One - the triune Godhead) loves us more than we can ever love.

 

Ketty

LeClerc wrote:


In Pauls letter

1 Corinthians 15 HNV
3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Messiah died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,


Ketty, to which Scriptures was Paul referring ?



To which ones do you think he was referring LeClerc?
Derek

Ketty wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:


Right back atcha "Ralph". You're doing satan's thing again - quoting Scripture at people as if it doesn't apply to you.

I can understand though, and in fact you've told us yourself that He eludes you, and that you do not know the Holy Spirit - so it's inevitable that you find the whole idea hilarious.

In Christ Jesus (the real One: I AM - the triune Godhead - God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit) I love you "Ralph" - that's you, not your name or your account.  I pray that one day you will be able to understand that He (the real One - the triune Godhead) loves us more than we can ever love.

 



Well,  as you think that I need to heed these Commandments let's call you on it.  I forgive you of all the malicious and denigrating remarks you have made against me.  I forgive you you for all the lies and deceptions that you have made against me as well. I promise never to hold a grudge against you for them. Neither will I judge you for making them. If this is acceptably, I will cease in making any further retaliatory remarks or contentions against you.  Are you prepared to do the same? I just do not give the Commandments lip service, I strive to keep them, thus following the teachings of the savior. I take it seriously. I am a real Christian. Balls in your court.  Are you a real Christian? Let's see.
Shaker

LeClerc wrote:
The Ruach HaKodesh of YHWH, in Messiah Y'shua

Do you speak English only incidentally?
LeClerc

Hi Ketty

Ketty wrote:
LeClerc wrote:


In Pauls letter

1 Corinthians 15 HNV
3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Messiah died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,


Ketty, to which Scriptures was Paul referring ?



To which ones do you think he was referring LeClerc?


There is a general consensus among scholars that 1 Corinthians was written by Paul. In late 56 or early 57 a.d., Paul was in the city of Ephesus in Asia Minor. From there, he addressed a series of letters to the Greek city of Corinth, which he had visited between 50 and 52 a.d.

Maybe the first question we need to ask is, would any of The Gospels been in wide circulation by this date ?

What do you think Ketty, when do you believe the first Gospels began to circulate and would they have reached Corinth before Paul wrote his first letter. Also how would Paul have known, at the time he wrote his first letter, that those in Corinth would have read any of The Gospels ?

Regards

LeClerc
Ketty

Ralph2 wrote:
Well,  as you think that I need to heed these Commandments let's call you on it.  I forgive you of all the malicious and denigrating remarks you have made against me.  I forgive you you for all the lies and deceptions that you have made against me as well. I promise never to hold a grudge against you for them. Neither will I judge you for making them. If this is acceptably, I will cease in making any further retaliatory remarks or contentions against you.  Are you prepared to do the same? I just do not give the Commandments lip service, I strive to keep them, thus following the teachings of the savior. I take it seriously. I am a real Christian. Balls in your court.  Are you a real Christian? Let's see.


That sounds so like satan as he tested and tempted God.    Be away from me satan, for it is written . . .

As always I will continue to be me, not a name, not a sock puppet, not an account.  Me - born again in Christ Jesus, in Spirit and in Truth, (the real One: I AM - the triune Godhead - God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit) ie the sort of Christian you've told us you hate most.

I will continue to highlight and challenge false teachings that have an outer wrapper erroneously labelled 'christian'.

I will continue to challenge you, and remind you of all the things that are in the Bear Pit, until you answer satisfactorily and accept your actions.  If you find all that uncomfortable, then there's hope for you yet if your uncomfortable feelings come from conscience rather than anything else, such as, say, a narcissistic psyche, for example.  But I promise you that you will enjoy such freedom in not having to constantly live a lie.     Praise God.

You will do what you want to do, whatever is your need, and most probably going from your history and precedent, continue to do what you do best.  That's your choice, and your actions for which you need to take personal responsibility.  

In Christ Jesus (the real One: I AM - the Triune Godhead - God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit) I love you "Ralph" - that's you, not your name nor your account.  I pray that one day you will realise that He (the real One: the Triune Godhead) loves us more than we can ever love.

Ball batted back to you "Ralph".






[/b]
Jim

I'd suggest that most of Paul's letters, including 1 Corinthians, were in some sort of circulation before the earliest Gospel (either 'Q' or Mark) was generally known, though, of course, the message contained within the Gospels was clearly disseminated by the apostles and those who had seen Christ before - and after - His resurrection, and were carrying out His instructions as per 'the Great Commission' in Matt 28:20.
Ketty

LeClerc wrote:
There is a general consensus among scholars that 1 Corinthians was written by Paul. In late 56 or early 57 a.d., Paul was in the city of Ephesus in Asia Minor. From there, he addressed a series of letters to the Greek city of Corinth, which he had visited between 50 and 52 a.d.

Maybe the first question we need to ask is, would any of The Gospels been in wide circulation by this date ?

What do you think Ketty, when do you believe the first Gospels began to circulate and would they have reached Corinth before Paul wrote his first letter. Also how would Paul have known, at the time he wrote his first letter, that those in Corinth would have read any of The Gospels ?


I doubt they'd be in wide circulation and read, as such.  There would have to be more than one copy - hand written?  I can't imagine that would be the case.  Word of mouth travels more quickly than anything - or at least it did before this modern mass-media age.  So the 'story' of the Messiah would have been known even before the letters and the Gospels had been circulated.  The (previous) Jews of the day were expecting the Messiah and would have known about the prophecy through their religious teachers.  The 'stories' would have made sense even before the truth from His disciples was shared.
Ketty

Jim wrote:
. . .  and were carrying out His instructions as per 'the Great Commission' in Matt 28:20.


LeClerc

Hi Ketty and Jim

Thank you for your replies and for having this discussion.

Jim wrote:
I'd suggest that most of Paul's letters, including 1 Corinthians, were in some sort of circulation before the earliest Gospel (either 'Q' or Mark) was generally known, though, of course, the message contained within the Gospels was clearly disseminated by the apostles and those who had seen Christ before - and after - His resurrection, and were carrying out His instructions as per 'the Great Commission' in Matt 28:20.


Ketty wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
There is a general consensus among scholars that 1 Corinthians was written by Paul. In late 56 or early 57 a.d., Paul was in the city of Ephesus in Asia Minor. From there, he addressed a series of letters to the Greek city of Corinth, which he had visited between 50 and 52 a.d.
Maybe the first question we need to ask is, would any of The Gospels been in wide circulation by this date ?
What do you think Ketty, when do you believe the first Gospels began to circulate and would they have reached Corinth before Paul wrote his first letter. Also how would Paul have known, at the time he wrote his first letter, that those in Corinth would have read any of The Gospels ?


I doubt they'd be in wide circulation and read, as such.  There would have to be more than one copy - hand written?  I can't imagine that would be the case.  Word of mouth travels more quickly than anything - or at least it did before this modern mass-media age.  So the 'story' of the Messiah would have been known even before the letters and the Gospels had been circulated.  The (previous) Jews of the day were expecting the Messiah and would have known about the prophecy through their religious teachers.  The 'stories' would have made sense even before the truth from His disciples was shared.


Reading what you have both posted and returning to

1 Corinthians 15 HNV
3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Messiah died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,


Believers in The Messiah, Y’shua, today, understand the word Scriptures, to mean The Tanakh, (The Law, The Writings and The Prophets) together with The Messianic writings, what many refer to as The Old and The New Testament.

However, when Paul wrote to the assembly of believers in Corinth, The Messianic writings were being penned and circulation of some of the early writings had only just began, therefore how would those in Corinth, understand the meaning of ‘’the Scriptures’’.

Turning to Luke 24
27 Beginning from Moshe and from all the prophets, he explained to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

Would the assembly of believers’ in Corinth understanding of the Scriptures, to which Paul referenced in his first letter, be the same as those which Messiah Y’shua referred, namely, the Tanakh.  By this I mean can we arrive at the understanding, Paul’s reference to the Scriptures, at that moment of time for the assembly of believers in Corinth, could only be The Tanakh, what many understand today, as the Old Testament?

Having arrived at an understanding that ‘’the Scriptures’’, for the assembly of believers in Corinth at the time they received Paul’s first letter, could only be The Tanakh, how would they understand Paul’s reference to, ‘’on the third day according to the Scriptures’’ ?

1 Corinthians 15
4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

Any thoughts ?

Regards

LeClerc
Jim

As the late David Frost used to say "The clues are out there."!
There are enough christophanies, theophanies and Messianic prophesies in the O.T. to make it abundantly clear that the Messiah would A come.
B. suffer for His people.
C Come for those who did not accept Him (Gentiles)
D. Save people from their sins!
Paul only had to use those scriptures, in the light of the life, death and resurrection of Christ Jesus, to bring home the message!
LeClerc

Morning Jim

Thank you for your reply.

Jim wrote:
As the late David Frost used to say "The clues are out there."!
There are enough christophanies, theophanies and Messianic prophesies in the O.T. to make it abundantly clear that the Messiah would A come.
B. suffer for His people.
C Come for those who did not accept Him (Gentiles)
D. Save people from their sins!
Paul only had to use those scriptures, in the light of the life, death and resurrection of Christ Jesus, to bring home the message!


Agree with what you have posted Jim but that stiil does not answer Pauls refererence to ''that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures''

YHWH gave His people instructions as to the keeping of His feasts and this often involved the counting of days.

The Feast of Unleavened Bread lasts seven Days and begins on the day following what many call Passover, so many have made Passover eight days but this is not what Torah teaches.

Passover is One day, the 14 of Nisan.

The Feast of Unleavened Bread, is seven days, and begins with Day One, on the 15 Nisan.

Therefore Paul’s reference to the third day according to the scriptures is reference to the third day of The Feast of Unleavened Bread according to the Tanakh.

1 Corinthians 15
4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures

Israel’s Messiah, Y’shua, was indeed raised from the dead on the third day, according to the Scriptures, and according to the Scriptures, the Tanakh, the third day was the third day of The Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Any thoughts.

Regards

LeClerc
cyberman

LeClerc wrote:
Hi Cyberman

cyberman wrote:
LeClerc wrote:


Now Cyberman was man, Hebrew loosely transliterated adam, ever given a proper name and if so by who and when, and what was that name?

LeClerc


Haven't got a Scooby what you're on about, mate.


What makes you think the human beings in this passage.

Genesis 1 NLT
27 So God created human beings [fn] in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them

Are different from the human beings in this passage.

Genesis 3 NLT
22 Then the LORD God said, “Look, the human beings [fn] have become like us, knowing both good and evil. What if they reach out, take fruit from the tree of life, and eat it? Then they will live forever!”

The Hebrew for both is transliterated adam.

Regards

LeClerc


What makes you think that I think that they are different?
LeClerc

Hi Cyberman

cyberman wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Hi Cyberman

cyberman wrote:
LeClerc wrote:


Now Cyberman was man, Hebrew loosely transliterated adam, ever given a proper name and if so by who and when, and what was that name?

LeClerc


Haven't got a Scooby what you're on about, mate.


What makes you think the human beings in this passage.

Genesis 1 NLT
27 So God created human beings [fn] in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them

Are different from the human beings in this passage.

Genesis 3 NLT
22 Then the LORD God said, “Look, the human beings [fn] have become like us, knowing both good and evil. What if they reach out, take fruit from the tree of life, and eat it? Then they will live forever!”

The Hebrew for both is transliterated adam.

Regards

LeClerc


What makes you think that I think that they are different?


If I have misunderstood you then I apologise

You have posted here  

cyberman wrote:

The fact that the proper name Adam and the Hebrew word for man are linked, does not mean that we cannot separate them.


However just to be clear are you now saying we cannot separate the human beings here

Genesis 1 NLT
27 So God created human beings [fn] in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them

From the human beings here

Genesis 3 NLT
22 Then the LORD God said, “Look, the human beings [fn] have become like us, knowing both good and evil. What if they reach out, take fruit from the tree of life, and eat it? Then they will live forever!”

Regards

LeClerc
cyberman

LeClerc wrote:
Hi Cyberman

cyberman wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Hi Cyberman

cyberman wrote:
LeClerc wrote:


Now Cyberman was man, Hebrew loosely transliterated adam, ever given a proper name and if so by who and when, and what was that name?

LeClerc


Haven't got a Scooby what you're on about, mate.


What makes you think the human beings in this passage.

Genesis 1 NLT
27 So God created human beings [fn] in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them

Are different from the human beings in this passage.

Genesis 3 NLT
22 Then the LORD God said, “Look, the human beings [fn] have become like us, knowing both good and evil. What if they reach out, take fruit from the tree of life, and eat it? Then they will live forever!”

The Hebrew for both is transliterated adam.

Regards

LeClerc


What makes you think that I think that they are different?


If I have misunderstood you then I apologise

You have posted here  

cyberman wrote:

The fact that the proper name Adam and the Hebrew word for man are linked, does not mean that we cannot separate them.


However just to be clear are you now saying we cannot separate the human beings here

Genesis 1 NLT
27 So God created human beings [fn] in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them

From the human beings here

Genesis 3 NLT
22 Then the LORD God said, “Look, the human beings [fn] have become like us, knowing both good and evil. What if they reach out, take fruit from the tree of life, and eat it? Then they will live forever!”

Regards

LeClerc


You have indeed misunderstood entirely.

I am saying that someone can read the story of Adam and Eve and think to themselves "I think that's all made up. I don't believe that those two individuals ever did or said any of the things which are described here...etc". And at the same time they can think "I believe that I am descended from human beings who lived in the past", while also holding to be true "Interestingly, the name of the made up chap in that made up story I am simultaneously thinking about, Adam, comes from the Hebrew word for human. "

There is no contradiction in any of that. If you are saying that the story of Adam and Eve should be re-read and should be taken to refer only to palaeohominids then (a) you've got a job on convincing anyone and (b) that makes no difference at all to what we are discussing here. which is the incredulity of people who do not read the story in that way, who think that it is talking about two made up individuals, and who do not believe that those two made up individuals ever existed.

Stop pretending not to understand that.
LeClerc

Hi Cyberman

cyberman wrote:

And at the same time they can think "I believe that I am descended from human beings who lived in the past", .


What prevents the desendants of these human beings from entering the Kingdom of YHWH Elohim?

These human beings called Adam

Genesis 5 KJV
2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created

Regards

LeClerc
cyberman

LeClerc wrote:
Hi Cyberman

cyberman wrote:

And at the same time they can think "I believe that I am descended from human beings who lived in the past", .


What prevents the desendants of these human beings from entering the Kingdom of YHWH Elohim?



Can you be kind enough to address my point, please?
LeClerc

Morning Cyberman
cyberman wrote:

Can you be kind enough to address my point, please?


Okay you have posted the following

cyberman wrote:

You have indeed misunderstood entirely.
I am saying that someone can read the story of Adam and Eve and think to themselves "I think that's all made up. I don't believe that those two individuals ever did or said any of the things which are described here...etc". And at the same time they can think "I believe that I am descended from human beings who lived in the past", while also holding to be true "Interestingly, the name of the made up chap in that made up story I am simultaneously thinking about, Adam, comes from the Hebrew word for human. "
There is no contradiction in any of that. If you are saying that the story of Adam and Eve should be re-read and should be taken to refer only to palaeohominids then (a) you've got a job on convincing anyone and (b) that makes no difference at all to what we are discussing here. which is the incredulity of people who do not read the story in that way, who think that it is talking about two made up individuals, and who do not believe that those two made up individuals ever existed.

Stop pretending not to understand that.


This is not a case of pretending  not to understand, if I might explain.

In your post above, the someone who reads as you put it ‘’the story of Adam and Eve’’ and thinks to themselves "I think that's all made up. I don't believe that those two individuals ever did or said any of the things which are described here...etc’’

Is that someone who you refer to, of the opinion that those two, as you put it, ''made up individuals'' are the same as the individuals referred to in the following passage ?

Genesis 5 KJV

This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created
3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:


Regards

LeClerc
cyberman

LeClerc wrote:
Morning Cyberman
cyberman wrote:

Can you be kind enough to address my point, please?


Okay you have posted the following

cyberman wrote:

You have indeed misunderstood entirely.
I am saying that someone can read the story of Adam and Eve and think to themselves "I think that's all made up. I don't believe that those two individuals ever did or said any of the things which are described here...etc". And at the same time they can think "I believe that I am descended from human beings who lived in the past", while also holding to be true "Interestingly, the name of the made up chap in that made up story I am simultaneously thinking about, Adam, comes from the Hebrew word for human. "
There is no contradiction in any of that. If you are saying that the story of Adam and Eve should be re-read and should be taken to refer only to palaeohominids then (a) you've got a job on convincing anyone and (b) that makes no difference at all to what we are discussing here. which is the incredulity of people who do not read the story in that way, who think that it is talking about two made up individuals, and who do not believe that those two made up individuals ever existed.

Stop pretending not to understand that.


This is not a case of pretending  not to understand, if I might explain.

In your post above, the someone who reads as you put it ‘’the story of Adam and Eve’’ and thinks to themselves "I think that's all made up. I don't believe that those two individuals ever did or said any of the things which are described here...etc’’

Is that someone who you refer to, of the opinion that those two, as you put it, ''made up individuals'' are the same as the individuals referred to in the following passage ?

Genesis 5 KJV

This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created
3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:


Regards

LeClerc


No, this hypothetical person hasn't read much of the Bible and hasn't studied it at all. He knows about the Adam and Eve story and thinks it is made up.

Could you kindly address my point, please, instead of all of this.. an old naighbour of mine used to use the expression "procrastination, prevarication and generally buggerin' about".. I think that covers it.
LeClerc

Morning Cyberman

cyberman wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Morning Cyberman
cyberman wrote:

Can you be kind enough to address my point, please?


Okay you have posted the following

cyberman wrote:

You have indeed misunderstood entirely.
I am saying that someone can read the story of Adam and Eve and think to themselves "I think that's all made up. I don't believe that those two individuals ever did or said any of the things which are described here...etc". And at the same time they can think "I believe that I am descended from human beings who lived in the past", while also holding to be true "Interestingly, the name of the made up chap in that made up story I am simultaneously thinking about, Adam, comes from the Hebrew word for human. "
There is no contradiction in any of that. If you are saying that the story of Adam and Eve should be re-read and should be taken to refer only to palaeohominids then (a) you've got a job on convincing anyone and (b) that makes no difference at all to what we are discussing here. which is the incredulity of people who do not read the story in that way, who think that it is talking about two made up individuals, and who do not believe that those two made up individuals ever existed.

Stop pretending not to understand that.


This is not a case of pretending  not to understand, if I might explain.

In your post above, the someone who reads as you put it ‘’the story of Adam and Eve’’ and thinks to themselves "I think that's all made up. I don't believe that those two individuals ever did or said any of the things which are described here...etc’’

Is that someone who you refer to, of the opinion that those two, as you put it, ''made up individuals'' are the same as the individuals referred to in the following passage ?

Genesis 5 KJV

This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created
3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:


Regards

LeClerc


No, this hypothetical person hasn't read much of the Bible and hasn't studied it at all. He knows about the Adam and Eve story and thinks it is made up.

Could you kindly address my point, please, instead of all of this.. an old naighbour of mine used to use the expression "procrastination, prevarication and generally buggerin' about".. I think that covers it.


Your point is being addressed because you have now posted that the reason the hypothetical person thinks the Adam and Eve story is made up is because they have not read much of the Bible.

May I suggest that the answer to your question is that the hypothetical person begins reading the Bible after which will they arrive at the same conclusion regarding adam (man) ?

Regards

LeClerc
cyberman

LeClerc wrote:


May I suggest that the answer to your question is that the hypothetical person begins reading the Bible after which will they arrive at the same conclusion regarding adam (man) ?

Regards

LeClerc


He may well take your advice. At the moment however, he both (a) believes that the bit he has read (The first few chpaters of Genesis) is all made up and (b) believes that he is descended from humans.

Now, before another derailment to your train of thought occurs, be clear - I am not asking you whether he is right. I am asking you whether you understand what his current position is. Do you understand that?
LeClerc

Hi Cyberman

cyberman wrote:
LeClerc wrote:


May I suggest that the answer to your question is that the hypothetical person begins reading the Bible after which will they arrive at the same conclusion regarding adam (man) ?

Regards

LeClerc


He may well take your advice. At the moment however, he both (a) believes that the bit he has read (The first few chpaters of Genesis) is all made up and (b) believes that he is descended from humans.

Now, before another derailment to your train of thought occurs, be clear - I am not asking you whether he is right. I am asking you whether you understand what his current position is. Do you understand that?


Do I understand what his current position is ? From what you have posted, yes.

Regards

LeClerc
LeClerc

Hi Cyberman

cyberman wrote:
LeClerc wrote:


May I suggest that the answer to your question is that the hypothetical person begins reading the Bible after which will they arrive at the same conclusion regarding adam (man) ?

Regards

LeClerc


He may well take your advice. At the moment however, he both (a) believes that the bit he has read (The first few chpaters of Genesis) is all made up and (b) believes that he is descended from humans.

Now, before another derailment to your train of thought occurs, be clear - I am not asking you whether he is right. I am asking you whether you understand what his current position is. Do you understand that?


Do I understand what his current position is ? From what you have posted, yes.

Regards

LeClerc
cyberman

LeClerc wrote:
Hi Cyberman

cyberman wrote:
LeClerc wrote:


May I suggest that the answer to your question is that the hypothetical person begins reading the Bible after which will they arrive at the same conclusion regarding adam (man) ?

Regards

LeClerc


He may well take your advice. At the moment however, he both (a) believes that the bit he has read (The first few chpaters of Genesis) is all made up and (b) believes that he is descended from humans.

Now, before another derailment to your train of thought occurs, be clear - I am not asking you whether he is right. I am asking you whether you understand what his current position is. Do you understand that?


Do I understand what his current position is ? From what you have posted, yes.

Regards

LeClerc


Excellent, we have made progress. So now you understand the position which Shaker and genghiscant have expressed. They think they are descended from humans, but they don't think that Adam and Eve is a true story.

They differ from my hypothetical person insofar as whereas he has not read the Bible, they have read it but don't share your interpretation. But their position (if they will forgive me for taking the liberty...) is ( I think) as described. I am glad you now understand that.
LeClerc

Hi Cyberman

cyberman wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Hi Cyberman

cyberman wrote:
LeClerc wrote:


May I suggest that the answer to your question is that the hypothetical person begins reading the Bible after which will they arrive at the same conclusion regarding adam (man) ?

Regards

LeClerc


He may well take your advice. At the moment however, he both (a) believes that the bit he has read (The first few chpaters of Genesis) is all made up and (b) believes that he is descended from humans.

Now, before another derailment to your train of thought occurs, be clear - I am not asking you whether he is right. I am asking you whether you understand what his current position is. Do you understand that?


Do I understand what his current position is ? From what you have posted, yes.

Regards

LeClerc


Excellent, we have made progress. So now you understand the position which Shaker and genghiscant have expressed. They think they are descended from humans, but they don't think that Adam and Eve is a true story.

They differ from my hypothetical person insofar as whereas he has not read the Bible, they have read it but don't share your interpretation. But their position (if they will forgive me for taking the liberty...) is ( I think) as described. I am glad you now understand that.


Thanks for that Cyberman, yes I understand what you are saying, however what many fail to understand is that both male and female were called, Hebrew loosely transliterated ''adam''

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/5-2.htm

Regards

LeClerc

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Christian chat
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum