One of them, yes I believe so. The other one im not sure.
11.03.2025 06:12
👍 0
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
One of them, yes I believe so. The other one im not sure.
Yeah that makes sense!
I have a couple friends who gave up inerrancy and, while not without some challenges, I think they've done well in their communities! (Still within evangelical circles). One of which invited many people alongside his journey with inerrancy in a fairly open way
Ah okay. And do you think you'd have a hard time being part of a community that accepts inerrancy such that you would not get the community benefits?
You think so? I wouldn't think it would come up that often in ways that would affect this much
I'll just say for the record I don't think that's a bad thing.
But I'm assuming, hopefully, that length correlates with number of objections adequately addressed. I know there's no guarantee, but I want my objections addressed, dang it!
Nice thread. I appreciate making the reasoning explicit
I don't think that's required by the text at all
Judgment day is the first day of the new heavens and the new earth. We may look at the aftermath of judgment day. It doesn't say we will continue to look on them eternally.
Probably we will be present on judgment day, and the Bible talks about how awful that will be, and how we shouldn't even long for that day, so I imagine that is what is in view!
Not that the the "go out and look" will be our eternal state
forget about your loved ones to not notice they are not there with you or not make an inference to their suffering, or otherwise your identity would be modified by your memory of them being deleted, or whatever.
To me, this kind of thing seems less problematic than some fake negative emotion haha
A previous girlfriend's take on this is that we will have a certain kind of sadness/grief in heaven that is compatible with Scripture on rejoicing in heaven, that it isn't a problematic/negative kind of sadness, or something.
Cause she (like others) think you would have to be irrational to
Yep yep!
That's difficult, I'm sorry!
Oh wait, do they believe they will be rejoicing at that?
This looks like it will be a fantastic online philosophy of religion conference!
Oof. These are awful.
Wait were "microblogs" really a thing??
Score!
Isn't one way to take care of your knees to not go below 90 😅
Novatian (3rd century) also does this a bunch in ch. 18 here www.newadvent.org/fathers/0511...
From Novatian: But this the Son of God, "The Lord rained from the Lord upon Sodom and Gomorrha brimstone and fire.""
Looking back at my notes, Justin Martyr does talk a lot about Jesus being referenced as God in the OT, including verses where YHWH is used. See ch. 56-60 here (56 especially) www.newadvent.org/fathers/0128...
Justin Martyr apparently thought similarly. From Gilbert, George H. "Justin Martyr on the Person of Christ." The American Journal of Theology 10.4 (1906): 663-674.
So considering some of these occurrences refer to either YHWH or angel of YHWH or both, Martyr must not have equated YHWH and Father
Ah sick thanks for these! I'll have to check it out
And here's the talk, about the "two powers in heaven" view
Slides: drive.google.com/file/d/1-4vC...
Video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJBL...
Just the verses talking about YHWH is that one who brought the Israelites out of Egypt, like Exodus 20:2, while Jude 5 says Jesus brought the Israelites out of Egypt.
You probably have access to better than this, but we just had a nice talk about it on campus drive.google.com/file/d/1-7KQ...
And I think you're asking more about historical references. I can't in memory provide them but from what I remember the above agrees with what the church fathers said. For example Ireneaus brought up both the Moses bush and raining down fire on Sodom I mentioned frted.wordpress.com/2016/11/01/c...
On the other hand, the usual interpretation of the "angel of YHWH"references, such as Exodus 3:2, are also Jesus. So the apparent equation of the angel of YHWH and YHWH (compare Ex 3:2 and 3:4) links the 2
This, and also the "YHWH rained fire from YHWH in heaven" verse that is understood as Jesus suggests that YHWH = God, not necessarily the Father.
Jude says that Jesus led the Israelites out of Egypt, which the OT says is YHWH.
So yes YHWH is for God, not a specific designation of which person
I hereby petition to call posts on this site Flaps. Who's with me?
(Flitter or Flutter also seem like great options)
Post the last sentence of your last article:
"Hopefully, this post added to your exploration of the ideas about infinite value of humans, of infinite sins, sins against God, equal sins, and perhaps Ananias and Sapphira specifically, and helped you make some sense of the ideas at play here."
