"What time is"

[Audie]

I don't think anyone is saying that, Audie.

If proof of god via first cause etc is offered in any part on the basis of a profound misunderstanding ofvwhat time is, then-?

[Philip]

metaphysics is as true regardlees of physics.

That is because A) the METAphysics came FIRST, and B) whatever physical things came into existence are here because of whatever TRULY pre-existed within the metaphysical realm. And something within THAT metaphysical realm had to have been eternal, powerful and intelligent, etc - because of the amazing characteristics of the precise things which instantly emerged from it. The identity of that thing or things physical things emerged from can be reasonably debated. However, we unquestionably and rationally know that SOMETHING was in the metaphysical realm - and that truth is established simply by the fact that we have an extraordinary universe, whereas before the physical appeared, nothing physical existed.

The first physical things did not/could not create themselves. That means that they are dependent and emerged from some previously existing Source or sources from within the metaphysical realm. So, there is a reality / truth that is behind our universe, which originated from the metaphysical. The question is, can we understand what was in that metaphysical realm? Are there any compelling clues in our PHYSICAL realm as to what that might have been? And this understanding will always necessarily have many uncertainties. But our uncertainties don't negate that there is a truth to these things. What can we know about that truth? But is there not also some certainty from the clues that we have from the universe that now exists, and it's history, as to what the metaphysical contained, per it's emergent universe?

And, BTW, time itself emerged from the metaphysical, as it is a measure of proximities / relationships and changes of the previously non-existing physical. Nothing physical, no time!

[Jac3510]

I don't think anyone is saying that, Audie.

If proof of god via first cause etc is offered in any part on the basis of a profound misunderstanding ofvwhat time is, then-?

No. The question of God's existence via the First Way (to offer a specific example of a first cause argument) is in no way related to the question of the nature of time. Morever, the question as to the nature of time is not asked and answered without respect to physics. It is based in large part on physics. It just turns out, per my OP, as any good theory, that predictions from the theory are being confirmed (e.g., relativity being the big one). Another major prediction relates to the whole notion of indeterminacy. A major problem in philosophy today and related enterprises is the question of hard determinism. But that's an outmoded idea, a relic of a Newtonian view of the universe. It's wrong. The classical view has always espoused that the physical universe is fundamentally indeterministic. Science is starting to prove that right, and it will continue to do so. Just like it is and has been with time. And that is also why people don't know what time is. In a Newtonian world, time is one thing. And the Newtonian view is commonly assumed. And that creates intractable problems. But if you get away from those errors to what we have always said time is, then the problems immediately clear up.

[Jac3510]

One more point, btw. If physics were to demonstrate that the B-Theory of time is correct (or, if you prefer, to falsify the A-Theory), our understanding of time as depicted in the OP would necessarily change. So, again, it just isn't true that metaphysics is independent of physics.

As an aside, we can certainly get really nuanced about this whole thing and distinguish between the ontological priortity of metaphysics vs the epistemological priority of physics; we can further distinguish between the logical priority of both (and so recognize that logic is a method in both metaphysics and physics); we can still further distinguish between physics per se, the scientific interpretation (i.e., theoretical framework) by which observations in physics are given meaning, and the philosophical assumptions underlying both the interpretation/theory itself as well as the theory or theories that generated the observation. Within all of those distinctions there questions relating to priority, either theirs or of metaphysics itself.

My point is that metaphysics are physics are interrelated, and that is because both are describing the same reality. But they are describing different aspects of that same reality. Physics literally cannot answer metaphysical questions, and metaphysics literally cannot answer physics questions. Both that doesn't mean either doesn't have anything to say to the other, and, in fact, more often than not, they have a great deal to say to each other. That's something metaphysicians deeply appreciate and something that, in my limited experience, I've found most physicists sadly do not (stated more succinctly: physicists tend to be bad philosophers and don't realize it).

[Philip]

Jac: My point is that metaphysics are physics are interrelated...

True - as the latter came from and was produced from within the former.

Jac: ...and that is because both are describing the same reality. But they are describing different aspects of that same reality.

No! There once was NO physical reality - and then, suddenly, there was. The metaphysical reality was absent of the physical and IS absent it (at least the physical reality of our universe) but birthed it.

Jac: Physics literally cannot answer metaphysical questions...

Of course not.

Jac: ...and metaphysics literally cannot answer physics questions

Well, other than they are somehow responsible for the physics of things.

Jac: ...stated more succinctly: physicists tend to be bad philosophers and don't realize it.

And vice versa! And the physics of things still need an explanation - and that must lie within the metaphysical realm. But physics can never explain metaphysics, because that is not what it is capable of examining. But I would say the universe shouts that the physics of things hint rather strongly at metaphysics, AND tracing their existence backwards naturally leads to metaphysics.

[Jac3510]

Jac: My point is that metaphysics are physics are interrelated...

True - as the latter came from and was produced from within the former.

You actually have that backwards. Meta means "after." Metaphysics are what we see must be true after we study physics.

No! There once was NO physical reality - and then, suddenly, there was. The metaphysical reality was absent of the physical and IS absent it (at least the physical reality of our universe) but birthed it.

When there was no physical reality, there was no metaphysics.

I think what you're trying to get at is the ontological priority of metaphysics. In other words, because things have a certain nature they behave in a certain way. Therefore, we can make certain measurements of things and make predictions as to how things will act in a given situation. That is, we can do physics, and that is because of metaphysical reality. But you can't get to metaphysics until you have first done physics.

Well, other than they are somehow responsible for the physics of things.

Right, but you can't reason that way. You don't know a thing's potencies until you measure them. In other words, you can't reason to how things will work in the physical world a priori. That kind of knowledge can only come a posteriori, and so such knowledge is fundamentally and necessarily empirical. And it is from such empirically based knowledge that we get the data to come to our metaphysical conclusions.

[Kurieuo]

I don't really know what your perception of philosophy is, but it seems direly wrong to me. Science really couldn't get off the ground without it. And philosophy without science is like navigating blind. The two really mutually inform each other.

Seemed others are saying that their metaphysics is as true regardlees of physics.

I spent just a little bit of time digging around YouTube. Here are several short videos I'd like to offer up, not just to you, but others also on metaphysics and the nature of such knowledge (the second one below I'd especially recommend Audie, as it clarifies types of knowledge to be had):

What is Metaphysics?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxV0zGVDXKo

Metaphysics, Knowledge & Kant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZtQXteAE-w


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaYVQMpkTYQ

I think these videos can help to clarify a lot and perhaps allow better exchanges to occur rather than the merry-go-round of science says/philosophy says, which I really see as a false dichotomy.

[Philip]

OK, there are differing perceptions of what is considered to be metaphysical. What I am referencing is ONLY that invisible, non-physical realm that preceded ALL things physical, and from which all things physical originated.

[neo-x]

OK, there are differing perceptions of what is considered to be metaphysical. What I am referencing is ONLY that invisible, non-physical realm that preceded ALL things physical, and from which all things physical originated.

Phil, just out of curiousity, how do you think the non-physical can give birth to physical? I mean on a cosmic scale, how do you understand it?

Also Invisible is a relative term, infrared light is invisible because our eyes can't see it but its there nonetheless. I guess if you were a bit more specific, I might see what exactly your definition encompass?
Thanks.

[neo-x]

Also Phil,

And, BTW, time itself emerged from the metaphysical

How do you mean?
Are you saying something in God, changed?

If you define time as a period of time between two events or motion/change then time can't emerge from metaphysical at all, if by metaphysical you strictly mean God, which I assume you mean. Correct me if I read it wrong.

If you say time emerged as the universe started then time didn't emerge from metaphysical either. Its a physical entity in a way. It could just be a byproduct of creation or matter or energy or space. But regardless of what it is or how we may define it, I still don't see how it can come from metaphysical as you define it. Like we know today that Gravity itself is not a force, its a product of the curvature of space-time around bodies that have mass. The same way time could be just that, its just a thought.

[Philip]

Neo, let me ask you: If you define time as something that exists without ANY physical things in existence - well, then, what is it, really? I equate time as a measure of things and events related to the physical.

And the physical emerged from what God created, from the realm in which He inhabits - but not like we might think of that. As I would say that the physical came from the the very MIND of God, and what He spoke into existence. It's not as if God had a storage place of all of these physical things He had created and stored in another dimension, and then He backed up His cosmic truck and dumped the contents into a new reality. But for those who do not believe in God - as they might refer to Singularity, or whatever - most scientists agree there is a point in which nothing physical existed. And whatever singularity was, it needed a Source. Although some, without evidence, would like to say that there is an eternal chain of universes and all other sorts of wild conjecture. But they've not solved the problem of that first linkage, or how it came into existence, or how it had any intelligence or even potential for such. It's merely pointless conjecture. But that the physical emerged from some thing, things or Source that was NON-physical leads us away from the currently existing dimensional structures, to whatever preceded it.

[neo-x]

Neo, let me ask you: If you define time as something that exists without ANY physical things in existence - well, then, what is it, really? I equate time as a measure of things and events related to the physical.

I'm sorry, I never claimed time exists without physicality, in fact I think the exact opposite because we know that from evidence of space-time.

But I wanted to know how you think of it. I mean at what point did God say let there be light? God is eternal but he there was obviously a moment when he ushered the words as a verbal command, right? Because a verbal command is basically an utterance of sound, is it physical the voice I mean? Or do you envision it as a thought just echoing inside the God mind?

Or if that doesn't make sense, how do you understand that physical came into existence? As you say God didn't have a truck- load of things to dump, and that's fine. I can accept that but how then do you think we exist? Do we exist in God's mind, or are we a separate existence from God? Is our existence an extension of God's own reality, his own existence or should I say his own being, being the existence?

I'm sorry, I just wanna know how you make sense of it in your own belief, which you seem quite sure of, that everything came from metaphysical, which you still haven't explained if you mean God by it or something abstract. How does the jump from non-physical to physical happened? I mean who is to say that God in his own right the only physical being that truly is physical in the way that he exists.

most scientists agree there is a point in which nothing physical existed.

You mean a quantum vacuum? it has potential energy but is it really nothing? It's controversial. Some poeple think a qunatum vacuum is not really nothing. Some like you are referring to do. What we do know that even in vacuum QPs start to appear and disappear.

By the way, I am just discussing with you and trying to learn the reasons for your conclusions, I'm not trying to put forth any argument that I wanna prove right. So questions which occurred to me, I have put them to you. You tell me what you think. Because I can't wrap my head around it but then unlike you I'm not so sure of it.

[Philip]

Neo: I'm sorry, I never claimed time exists without physicality, in fact I think the exact opposite because we know that from evidence of space-time.

Great. Because WHEREVER the physical came / whatever the Source, is also the source of the time that came into existence with it!

Christians believe that source to be the God of the Bible.

Neo: But I wanted to know how you think of it. I mean at what point did God say let there be light?

I tend to think billions of years ago. Precisely? That's unknowable. And for me, that exact point or length of time is relatively irrelevant.

Neo: God is eternal but he there was obviously a moment when he ushered the words as a verbal command, right?

Clearly. And it's also what Scripture teaches.

Neo: Because a verbal command is basically an utterance of sound, is it physical the voice I mean? Or do you envision it as a thought just echoing inside the God mind?

Does a spiritual being have a physical voice? Yes, He can create and USE a physical voice, just like He can create and utilize anything He so desires. But as there were no other beings alive to hear and understand, why would God use a physical voice? Not to mention, it doesn't really matter how He "spoke" the universe into existence.

Neo: Or if that doesn't make sense, how do you understand that physical came into existence? As you say God didn't have a truck- load of things to dump, and that's fine. I can accept that but how then do you think we exist? Do we exist in God's mind, or are we a separate existence from God? Is our existence an extension of God's own reality, his own existence or should I say his own being, being the existence?

As we are not BORN Christians, but born to quickly begin sinning, and as God is pure, we are clearly separate beings, else we could not sin, because God cannot contain any imperfection. And He tells us we once did not exist, and how we were created - and that is true whether Adam & Eve were the first real humans or not. You either believe that or not. Or, you could just latch on to Pantheism - which is where "we are all part of God" can lead.

Neo: I'm sorry, I just wanna know how you make sense of it in your own belief, which you seem quite sure of, that everything came from metaphysical, which you still haven't explained if you mean God by it or something abstract.

Of course I mean from God.

Neo: How does the jump from non-physical to physical happened? I mean who is to say that God in his own right the only physical being that truly is physical in the way that he exists.

That's not an understandable question. But God is not a physical being, but a Spiritual one! His Spirit took on the cloak of a human - and forever so!

Neo: You mean a quantum vacuum? it has potential energy but is it really nothing? It's controversial. Some poeple think a qunatum vacuum is not really nothing. Some like you are referring to do. What we do know that even in vacuum QPs start to appear and disappear.

Neo, really, what is your point? Either God exists and He created the universe, or He did not. As for the HOW off all of this - that seems to be what you are exceedingly hung up upon. You appear to be obsessed with untold processes as opposed to the one Who created and controls the processes. You seem all worked up over whether God micromanages the universe, or whether He just programmed it for randomness, unconcerned about the details of how that would eventually work out. And yet even that is absurd because an all-knowing Being could not have created ANYTHING that He didn't ALWAYS have full knowledge of what it would do or produce. And so, for it to have come out any differently than how it has come about (and ALL that happens), He would had to have created it differently - and yet, HOWEVER He MIGHT have created, He would have full knowledge of every future aspect of it.

Neo, your view of God appears to greatly limit His abilities. Because either Scripture is God-given or it is not! IF it is not, this means that He either A) doesn't care about people being misled by some collection of writings that only mostly or partially originated from Him (just think of the immense trouble and danger of such a thing!), and B) if that is the case, we could have no confidence in ANY of it, or C) That a Creator that came to die for His Word, really didn't. Or D) Which is most absurd, is that God wouldn't have the power to protect His word, or E) that it really wouldn't matter for Him to do so - this a God who has created specificity on a level we can scarcely comprehend!). Neo, all of this really begs a huge question as to why you believe in Jesus as God? Because Scripture says so???!!! Why believe THAT, if it is mixed up with tons of myth and fictions? How do you even know anything at all about Jesus - of significant detail that would lead you to faith? Because the Bible and God's prophets and Apostles said... Uh, that's a problem if you doubt so much of it. Really, why believe ANY of it. You're worried about all of these scientific "proofs" or speculations, and yet you state you believe as Jesus as your savior? WHY???!!! That's not scientific! Rational thinking didn't complete that for you. Somehow, ultimately, you must have faith in Christ. So, why DO you - if you don't accept the Bible as God's Word? And if you accept ONLY certain parts - how do you determine which is WHICH???

Last thoughts: IF discovering Christ and having faith in Him is a matter of being smart enough, having the perfect scientific information, trying to figure out all of these many immensely complicated things and issues surrounding creation, or evolution, and reality, etc., etc., HOW CAN ANYONE BELIEVE if it is dependent upon so many unknowable things? If this were true - that we could merely rationalize our way to faith, with the only route to that through the sifting through such enormous complexity - without a roadmap (like the Bible) to show us WHY it is necessary to have faith in ONLY JESUS, one of many supposed avatars, as opposed to one or more of so many other non-existent pretenders to whatever version of a supposed god or afterlife as is asserted of so many others? I believe that God made having faith in Jesus both rational, and with plenty of information to intelligently embrace it with our hearts and minds, as well as straight-forward and simple - to the sincere and willing mind and heart. And so that a simple, uneducated farmer could understand what He requires of them. But many make this quest some seemingly impossible journey with absolutely no certainties and dependent mostly upon their own intelligence and luck of discovery. Good luck with evangelizing anyone in such a way. Because THAT route is mostly filled with shadows, confusion, and greater doubt and uncertainty.

Let's not forget that God DOES assert we have enough information to have faith. And Romans and the Apostle Paul asserts that the ancients, with FAR less scientific and other understandings (which we moderns have), were held accountable, as God considered what they DID know sufficient to desire Him. Paul says they are also accountable. So what does that say about grasping God through complex intellectual and information quests? And Scripture relentlessly teaches that the reason why people go to hell is NOT because they don't have enough rational information to believe in Christ - as precisely the ONLY things that prevent faith is that people are determined to permanently resist God, and have closed off their hearts and minds to His prompting and enlightenment. They COULD believe, and He'll give them enough knowledge to believe, if only they won't deliberately resist. And THAT i s why God holds people accountable - they are accountable for what they COULD know and understand, if not for their own hard hearts and minds. So, ultimately, God made faith simple, but man acts as if that quest has to be unimaginably complex. People become blinded by their self-made constructs of ever greater complexity - often intentionally so, and way beyond what is reasonable, in God's eyes, as to what we CAN understand of Him - and what He requires of us.

As the New Testament reveals that Jesus confirmed the entirety of the Old Testament canon of writing of the Law and the Prophets, and we have his Words from reliable sources. If we don't believe what those that knew Jesus said He taught - why believe any of it?

https://carm.org/questions/about-jesus/ ... -testament

Sorry, Neo, you should know how much I care about you - and respect you. But I think your posts always lead me to the above disconcertions, questions, and conclusions.

[neo-x]

Neo: But I wanted to know how you think of it. I mean at what point did God say let there be light?


I tend to think billions of years ago. Precisely? That's unknowable. And for me, that exact point or length of time is relatively irrelevant.

The problem is when you say billions of years ago, that introduces time outside of creation. And obviously, you only believe it came after. I hope you see the contradiction. There was obviously a point when God created but the very problem is "when" and "created".

That is why I asked you whether we exist as a separate existence or are we a part of God, so to say, do we exist in God's mind?
Because whatever God wants to create that is his mind, for the lack of better wording, is with him true from always. We can't say, God, one day thought of making us.

Neo: God is eternal but he there was obviously a moment when he ushered the words as a verbal command, right?

Clearly. And it's also what Scripture teaches.

And clearly flies in the face of what you said earlier, and how we both agree to it that time only exists after or when creation happened.

Neo, really, what is your point? Either God exists and He created the universe, or He did not. As for the HOW off all of this - that seems to be what you are exceedingly hung up upon. You appear to be obsessed with untold processes as opposed to the one Who created and controls the processes. You seem all worked up over whether God micromanages the universe, or whether He just programmed it for randomness, unconcerned about the details of how that would eventually work out. And yet even that is absurd because an all-knowing Being could not have created ANYTHING that He didn't ALWAYS have full knowledge of what it would do or produce. And so, for it to have come out any differently than how it has come about (and ALL that happens), He would had to have created it differently - and yet, HOWEVER He MIGHT have created, He would have full knowledge of every future aspect of it.

On the contrary Phil, I made it clear in my last post that all I am doing is trying to learn your reasons for what you believe and the apparent problems I see with it.

Neo, your view of God appears to greatly limit His abilities. Because either Scripture is God-given or it is not! IF it is not, this means that He either A) doesn't care about people being misled by some collection of writings that only mostly or partially originated from Him (just think of the immense trouble and danger of such a thing!), and B) if that is the case, we could have no confidence in ANY of it, or C) That a Creator that came to die for His Word, really didn't. Or D) Which is most absurd, is that God wouldn't have the power to protect His word, or E) that it really wouldn't matter for Him to do so - this a God who has created specificity on a level we can scarcely comprehend!).

It's really a non-objection. What are God's abilities in the context you say? if I throw a new-born baby into a cage of a hungry lion, will God come down to stop me? If I rape someone, will God come down and say stop it? If I decide to do any of those things, will God stop me or can I just do things? Observation and real world experiencing tells me, God wouldn't. He never does actually. So if a priest wants to add a second creation account in Genesis, will God stop him? I hardly think so.

Neo, all of this really begs a huge question as to why you believe in Jesus as God? Because Scripture says so???!!! Why believe THAT, if it is mixed up with tons of myth and fictions? How do you even know anything at all about Jesus - of significant detail that would lead you to faith? Because the Bible and God's prophets and Apostles said... Uh, that's a problem if you doubt so much of it. Really, why believe ANY of it. You're worried about all of these scientific "proofs" or speculations, and yet you state you believe as Jesus as your savior? WHY???!!! That's not scientific! Rational thinking didn't complete that for you. Somehow, ultimately, you must have faith in Christ. So, why DO you - if you don't accept the Bible as God's Word? And if you accept ONLY certain parts - how do you determine which is WHICH???

Again, if you missed it in our previous convos, I don't doubt scripture, I know exactly the part that I have a problem with and that is only because evidence today tells me it's impossible, so I think it must be wrong. I sincerely believe that the scripture says what it means except ofcourse the part where there's evidence against it. I really doubt that God would fault me for using my brain. The Bible isn't an all or nothing. The first gentile church converts didn't have the O.T with them, nor the N.T for that matter, did it stop them from believing? I see the Biblical text for what it means and I respect it. I can understand why some of the detail is wrong and I am fine with it. I can see why that is so. Doesn't hamper my faith at all.

Though I do think you are making a stumbling block for yourself. Given what we know now, the Adam-Eve story can't be exactly how it's told. You can choose to say you don't accept it and that's fine. But its a major problem that comes with this type of thinking, when people realize it they just leave faith because they are taught an all or nothing approach. Instead of understanding the wider goals and making sense of things you need to have an affirmation that you must believe all of it true even though there's evidence against it. To be honest Phil, that's not faith at all. That is self-deceiving. And I will be guilty of that if I didn't clear my objections and still kept on believing against the evidence.

As the New Testament reveals that Jesus confirmed the entirety of the Old Testament canon of writing of the Law and the Prophets, and we have his Words from reliable sources. If we don't believe what those that knew Jesus said He taught - why believe any of it?

So you actually believe that Jesus confirmed the O.T...then you must also believe that the world was created in 6 days, and the sun and moon stood still when Joshua prayed?
Ofcourse you don't, even though the scriptures clearly confirm it. May I ask why? Why not just believe what it says?

Sorry, Neo, you should know how much I care about you - and respect you.

The feeling is mutual Phil. As I said its a discussion.

[Philip]

Neo: Because whatever God wants to create that is his mind, for the lack of better wording, is with him true from always. We can't say, God, one day thought of making us.

Yes, I agree, God can never have a new thought of something that would one day He would make become reality. But that is an entirely different thing than the fact that at one specific moment, He created the beginning of the physical reality which we live in.

Neo: I don't doubt scripture, I know exactly the part that I have a problem with and that is only because evidence today tells me it's impossible, so I think it must be wrong.

You just contradicted yourself! You don't doubt, BUT.... some aspect of it is impossible? If it is impossible, then it is not God's word. OR maybe, and far more likely, is you have either misunderstood the meaning OR you have bought into an inaccurate scientific understandings. Of course, we know that the Creation accounts have multiple possibilities based upon the wording - which many evangelical scholars agree upon.

Neo: I sincerely believe that the scripture says what it means except ofcourse the part where there's evidence against it. I really doubt that God would fault me for using my brain.

No, I'm pretty sure he gave us a brain so we would use it.

Neo: The Bible isn't an all or nothing. The first gentile church converts didn't have the O.T with them, nor the N.T for that matter, did it stop them from believing? I see the Biblical text for what it means and I respect it. I can understand why some of the detail is wrong and I am fine with it. I can see why that is so. Doesn't hamper my faith at all.

Jesus said SCRIPTURE is God-given. And He confirmed what was considered Scripture. The Apostles quoted so much of the Old Testament that you can almost assemble if from just the NT quotations. So, what you assert means that we should doubt large portions of what they and Christ is recorded to assert is Scripture.

Neo: Though I do think you are making a stumbling block for yourself. Given what we know now, the Adam-Eve story can't be exactly how it's told.

And you know that isn't correct - DEPENDING upon how one interprets it. Adam and Eve might well have been created LONG after God first created the first man - however and by whatever process that might have taken. I say by miraculus fiat - you, likely, by evolution. But God's line, could have come much later with the creations of Adam & Eve - and long after mankind was created. The text does allow for this - READ it. You also know the issues surrounding the "days" of creation, and how other passages show it need not require 24 hours. You also should know that miraculous creation could also account for the very same fossil evidences. But the main issue is that nothing could exist without God creating it.

Neo: You can choose to say you don't accept it and that's fine. But its a major problem that comes with this type of thinking, when people realize it they just leave faith because they are taught an all or nothing approach.

Well, first, you have a huge problem in that you have no idea how to pick and choose what Jesus and the Apostles wrote as inspired, and what is just - what? Lies, outright fabrications? Distortions of others? Have you ever done research into the related issues - if so, you should know that there is immense support for the intergrity of Scripture.

Neo: Instead of understanding the wider goals and making sense of things you need to have an affirmation that you must believe all of it true even though there's evidence against it. To be honest Phil, that's not faith at all. That is self-deceiving. And I will be guilty of that if I didn't clear my objections and still kept on believing against the evidence. As the New Testament reveals that Jesus confirmed the entirety of the Old Testament canon of writing of the Law and the Prophets, and we have his Words from reliable sources. If we don't believe what those that knew Jesus said He taught - why believe any of it?

But your main problem seems to be you read so much Scripture as literalist where it suits you, but not where it doesn't. Maybe faith in Jesus isn't so critical? Maybe it's okay to do all manner of whatever sins, and the texts are just the moralizing of some mens' human sensibilities that they incorporated into the texts.

Neo: So you actually believe that Jesus confirmed the O.T...then you must also believe that the world was created in 6 days, and the sun and moon stood still when Joshua prayed?

Only one without any theological training would assume such literalisms. But as God created a universe from His mind, do I doubt the miraculous that I don't understand? My faith is not in my perfect understandings of Scripture - even though I believe it is God-inspired. My faith is in Jesus/God/Spirit. I do not worship the text.

Neo: Of course you don't, even though the scriptures clearly confirm it. May I ask why? Why not just believe what it says?

Neo, you only take a literalist view along with your faith that you correctly understand the current scientific evidences. There are many possibilities. But as for God's word, your view of saying so much of it isn't correct - well, as for those things you assert can't be possible, you must correctly know what the intended meanings were - we all know that the meanings have a range of possibilities: Poetic, symbolic, allegorical, prophetic, literal - and there are also dual meanings for some things. Yes, one can take a simplistic literalist view of this or that and then dismiss it because of some modern "certainties" over the text. But you get the intended meaning wrong (perhaps it was meant allegorically, or whatever), or the incorrectly interpret the science or historical data, then your INTERPRETATION is the problem. And do you not know the issues surrounding the the parallels between the ancient Mesopotamian creation texts and Genesis? Have you ever studied scholarly views upon why that might be? Was Moses addressing and offering correct SCIENTIFIC understandings to an ancient tribal society that had just incurred four centuries of absorbing ancient Mesopotamian and Eyptian creation beliefs, or was he instead correcting their wrong theological beliefs, yet via a nomenclature and imagery that was already familiar to them. READ the ancient Mesopotamian and the Genesis creation accounts side by side - NO way the incredible parallels are just coincidences.

Lastly, many of the things I've seen you cast doubt upon where teachings the Apostles mixed in with very key doctrinal points of Scripture. So you believe outright fabrications where allowed to be intermingled with significant and essential God-given teachings? Again, how do you know what is what, and which is which? If this were true, we could have absolutely no confidence in any of it. Oh, we might speculate, but that's about as good as you'll be able to do. Paul speaks of Adam in Romans 5 - not a real person, eh? So all the rest of that passable, justification by faith, etc. - also just creative thoughts that weren't God-given? Read those other Scripture-confirming passages of Jesus that I linked (https://carm.org/questions/about-jesus/ ... -testament), all of them are complexly interspersed with a wide range of some of the most important theolgical and doctrinal teachings. And yet you tend to mostly doubt what would be miraculous and didn't play out in natural ways - AS IF they were A) impossible for God, and B) as if you have perfect understandings.

Again, Neo, why do you think is it critical to have faith in Jesus at all? Or believe God took on the form and nature of a man? Do these things make LOGICAL sense as per how things would be expected to work? Of course not! But you are only creating doubt and confusion when you assert that many things you doubt could be true - HOWEVER they might have worked to be so - because they are intricately woven into key components of the faith - and often, to support the more important points of the narrative. So, yeah, you can do as Jefferson did, and take scissors to your Bible - but WHICH parts, and how do you know? How do you decide? How do you know you have a correct understanding of some thing - whether scientific or not? Fact is, you COULDN'T know what is what - and no one could. How do you know that the teachings that a 2,000 year old "dead" rabbi was actually God are true? That faith in Jesus is key to a supposed eternal life? Pure rationalism? Oh, but these truths are so complexly interwoven into so much you also doubt - and THAT is a huge problem.

Let's not forget either that the canon and the contents of the OT texts - LONG predating Jesus - and their contents are well known. And yet, we have not Jesus or His apostles asserting ANY of it to be problematic and not God-given. Not ONE passage! In fact, precisely the opposite is true. Think Jesus didn't know whether what He confirmed was His own Word or not? Think if He knew the OT wasn't all God-given that He wouldn't have alerted the Apostles and warned them of what should be avoided and purged? If these doubted passages of the OT aren't true, then they are FALSE. Think Jesus wouldn't have made that clear? Wouldn't have been angry over the perversions of His Holy Word? If huge and important aspects of what is in the NT or the OT is completely false, and we've not one assertion by even one NT figure that these things were known and understood to be false - well, that also a huge problem for what you assert about Scripture. I really don't think you've adequately studied the issue. How easy it is to cherrypick some teaching in Scripture to not believe - really, most of us would have a list that corresponds perfectly to our preferred sins. And what is sin itself? No actual Adam & Eve falling into sin? No inherited sin NATURE? No need for a Saviour? The list just goes on and on of the theologivcal problems this would create. And yet, that is where you appear to be.