Evidence for God from Science

cnk12 wrote:I don't know of anyone personally, but I've been told there are certain Christian sects that reject the Old Testament. By reject, I mean they don't accept it as the word of God, God's covenant new or old, or having ever been God's law. I've never seen anything on the internet about any such church. If anyone knows of such a sect and can answer a question, it would be greatly appreciated.

In light of the fact Jesus frequently referenced and validated the Old Testament, what is their rationale for rejecting it?


Thanks

Marcionist was a group that did reject the Old Testament - see the link below for details:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism

During the time periods from about 1890's thru 1945 and codified during the advent of the Nazi's in Germany the German Lutheran Church adopted some Marcion's ideas due to political pressure placed upon the church by the Nazi regime. They did so in order to reject all Jewish connection to Christianity. This movement was termed "Positive Christianity" during that era in Germany. Not all Lutherans adopted this view but many nevertheless did. It dissolved after the WW II.

I do not know of any Christian group that now rejects the Old Testament as the original question asks.

If anyone does know of any groups - please let us know.

Please note - the Westburrow group is not Christian but rather a cult of hate and fear and not Christian by any means.
-
-
-

Neo wrote:
The thing is I reject none of the bible, I only rejected the part I had evidence against..

Now that clears it up completely.

Neo, I understand you reject a literal physical Adam and Eve, considering the DNA evidence (a conclusion I'm not entirely certain I agree with). But do you also reject a literal spiritual Adam and Eve? As in the first 'humans' that were made in God's image, who introduced sin into the world? If you do reject this then the question regarding the scriptural contrast between Jesus and Adam still stands, how do you explain it?

Byblos wrote:Neo, I understand you reject a literal physical Adam and Eve, considering the DNA evidence (a conclusion I'm not entirely certain is I agree with). But do you also reject a literal spiritual Adam and Eve? As in the first 'humans' that were made in God's image, who introduced sin into the world? If you do reject this then the question regarding the scriptural contrast between Jesus and Adam still stands, how do you explain it?

Well worded Byblos.

And while you're answering this Neo, please think about this as well...

Do you reject a literal physical Christ too? If you reject a literal physical Adam and Eve, but accept a literal physical Christ, how can the comparisons between Adam and Christ still work?

cnk12 wrote:I don't know of anyone personally, but I've been told there are certain Christian sects that reject the Old Testament. By reject, I mean they don't accept it as the word of God, God's covenant new or old, or having ever been God's law. I've never seen anything on the internet about any such church. If anyone knows of such a sect and can answer a question, it would be greatly appreciated.

In light of the fact Jesus frequently referenced and validated the Old Testament, what is their rationale for rejecting it?


Thanks

There is absolutely no reason for Christians to reject the covenants or as you say old testament. Christ, Paul nor any of the Gospel writers never rejected any of the covenants or practices of the teachings of the Torah. What you have here is the break that started with the Catholic church that eventually broke away from the Hebraic teachings of G-d's covenants. However today that shift is changing as more Christians are flocking to the ways of the Torah and away from the Catholic church.

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:Neo, I understand you reject a literal physical Adam and Eve, considering the DNA evidence (a conclusion I'm not entirely certain is I agree with). But do you also reject a literal spiritual Adam and Eve? As in the first 'humans' that were made in God's image, who introduced sin into the world? If you do reject this then the question regarding the scriptural contrast between Jesus and Adam still stands, how do you explain it?

Well worded Byblos.

And while you're answering this Neo, please think about this as well...

Do you reject a literal physical Christ too? If you reject a literal physical Adam and Eve, but accept a literal physical Christ, how can the comparisons between Adam and Christ still work?

Byb...I do reject a literal spiritual adam but not because I don't think that is a possible scenario. It may very well be one and I don't think there is any objection it from me on any technical problems. It may be true it may not. But my rejection of it comes directly from the story of Adam and eve in genesis to begin with, including the fall and death. I certainly think humanity had a brush with God at some time, perhaps an original tribe, family, clan though I am hesitant to say its the same adam and eve referenced in genesis, though they could be, it is not a matter of great significance to me anymore.

And to answer both your and rick's question. I see adam as fiction, christ not, I have evidence against adam, not christ, why would I question christ? The point of the contrast between adam and christ is not physical but spiritual, since it goes without saying from I stand, death was always natural and always happening, so the point is not to establish death or sin. Adam is a reference point from the O.T, Christ from the N.T. The contrast does not try to prove any more adam as literal than its to prove christ is literal thats not the point of that comparison. That is a contrast of spirit and sin, mortal and divine, fading and eternal. Adam represents death, Christ represents life. I must reject the view that sin causes physical death, though there is no denying that it does cause spiritual death.

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:Neo, I understand you reject a literal physical Adam and Eve, considering the DNA evidence (a conclusion I'm not entirely certain is I agree with). But do you also reject a literal spiritual Adam and Eve? As in the first 'humans' that were made in God's image, who introduced sin into the world? If you do reject this then the question regarding the scriptural contrast between Jesus and Adam still stands, how do you explain it?

Well worded Byblos.

And while you're answering this Neo, please think about this as well...

Do you reject a literal physical Christ too? If you reject a literal physical Adam and Eve, but accept a literal physical Christ, how can the comparisons between Adam and Christ still work?

Byb...I do reject a literal spiritual adam but not because I don't think that is a possible scenario. It may very well be one and I don't think there is any objection it from me on any technical problems. It may be true it may not. But my rejection of it comes directly from the story of Adam and eve in genesis to begin with, including the fall and death. I certainly think humanity had a brush with God at some time, perhaps an original tribe, family, clan though I am hesitant to say its the same adam and eve referenced in genesis, though they could be, it is not a matter of great significance to me anymore.

And to answer both your and rick's question. I see adam as fiction, christ not, I have evidence against adam, not christ, why would I question christ? The point of the contrast between adam and christ is not physical but spiritual, since it goes without saying from I stand, death was always natural and always happening, so the point is not to establish death or sin. Adam is a reference point from the O.T, Christ from the N.T. The contrast does not try to prove any more adam as literal than its to prove christ is literal thats not the point of that comparison. That is a contrast of spirit and sin, mortal and divine, fading and eternal. Adam represents death, Christ represents life. I must reject the view that sin causes physical death, though there is no denying that it does cause spiritual death.

Then what brought about spiritual death? Note that whether or not one believes in original sin is irrelevant to my question (in case you were wondering). I'm asking you to specifically state the means by which spiritual death came about and how it was propagated to all of humankind.

Byblos wrote:

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:Neo, I understand you reject a literal physical Adam and Eve, considering the DNA evidence (a conclusion I'm not entirely certain is I agree with). But do you also reject a literal spiritual Adam and Eve? As in the first 'humans' that were made in God's image, who introduced sin into the world? If you do reject this then the question regarding the scriptural contrast between Jesus and Adam still stands, how do you explain it?

Well worded Byblos.

And while you're answering this Neo, please think about this as well...

Do you reject a literal physical Christ too? If you reject a literal physical Adam and Eve, but accept a literal physical Christ, how can the comparisons between Adam and Christ still work?

Byb...I do reject a literal spiritual adam but not because I don't think that is a possible scenario. It may very well be one and I don't think there is any objection it from me on any technical problems. It may be true it may not. But my rejection of it comes directly from the story of Adam and eve in genesis to begin with, including the fall and death. I certainly think humanity had a brush with God at some time, perhaps an original tribe, family, clan though I am hesitant to say its the same adam and eve referenced in genesis, though they could be, it is not a matter of great significance to me anymore.

And to answer both your and rick's question. I see adam as fiction, christ not, I have evidence against adam, not christ, why would I question christ? The point of the contrast between adam and christ is not physical but spiritual, since it goes without saying from I stand, death was always natural and always happening, so the point is not to establish death or sin. Adam is a reference point from the O.T, Christ from the N.T. The contrast does not try to prove any more adam as literal than its to prove christ is literal thats not the point of that comparison. That is a contrast of spirit and sin, mortal and divine, fading and eternal. Adam represents death, Christ represents life. I must reject the view that sin causes physical death, though there is no denying that it does cause spiritual death.

Then what brought about spiritual death? Note that whether or not one believes in original sin is irrelevant to my question (in case you were wondering). I'm asking you to specifically state the means by which spiritual death came about and how it was propagated to all of humankind.

Because every human has the capacity to do evil. It is an inherent potential and that makes us imperfect to begin with. A perfect being cannot do evil, such as God. I would ask you how was sin born or came into existence, sin existed before humans existed, did it not? Sin is an abnormality in God's intended purpose/design. Whatever is not perfect, is by virtue an abnormality.

neo-x wrote:

Byblos wrote:Then what brought about spiritual death? Note that whether or not one believes in original sin is irrelevant to my question (in case you were wondering). I'm asking you to specifically state the means by which spiritual death came about and how it was propagated to all of humankind.

Because every human has the capacity to do evil. It is an inherent potential and that makes us imperfect to begin with. A perfect being cannot do evil, such as God. I would ask you how was sin born or came into existence, sin existed before humans existed, did it not? Sin is an abnormality in God's intended purpose/design. Whatever is not perfect, is by virtue an abnormality.

If God created us in his own image and we (A&E) did not cause spiritual death to enter the world, aside from the implications this brings with respect to God's nature, would that not make God the author of sin (and not just that he allows it to happen for a greater purpose)?

Byblos wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Byblos wrote:Then what brought about spiritual death? Note that whether or not one believes in original sin is irrelevant to my question (in case you were wondering). I'm asking you to specifically state the means by which spiritual death came about and how it was propagated to all of humankind.

Because every human has the capacity to do evil. It is an inherent potential and that makes us imperfect to begin with. A perfect being cannot do evil, such as God. I would ask you how was sin born or came into existence, sin existed before humans existed, did it not? Sin is an abnormality in God's intended purpose/design. Whatever is not perfect, is by virtue an abnormality.

If God created us in his own image and we (A&E) did not cause spiritual death to enter the world, aside from the implications this brings with respect to God's nature, would that not make God the author of sin (and not just that he allows it to happen for a greater purpose)?

Sin is a necessary result of free will. All free agents can do evil, sin is the manifestation of such potential, sin is the result, not the cause. The cause is 'not being perfect'. God is perfect so he can't sin, but if he going to create creatures that must resemble divine but also out of their own free will then that is what we see. Because god don't do absurdities. You can either make free agents with the potential of going against you or you can make robots but they won't be free.

It makes god who he is. You might as well ask whether he can make a stone heavy enough and can't lift it. If you introduce free wil then sin is refusing to the divine. Sin is not an entity, its the result of a bad choice and the capacity of of us making that choice. god does not make our choices, we do, so god can't be author of evil, since he only created choice for us to freely see the sense of doing what's right. we make the right choice we are saved, we make the wrong one and we are already dead. Sin is then, only the abnormal choice, the unnatural one.

neo-x, I think I understand your point of view. You're discounting the Adam and Eve story because it's been virtually shown it didn't happen that way. And at the same time you still accept the Bible.

What I'm curious about, which kind of goes back to my original post is how you justify your position.

Do you agree that the belief we started from a small group of humans in Africa contradicts the Bible?
That is the Bible and OT that was validated by Jesus.
And there is the point one person made about God's ability to drive what ended up in the Bible.

I've heard Genesis referred to as possibly being poetry, but I don't think that's a widely held view.

btw, no sarcasm or bad vibes here, I'm interested in understanding as many as I can.

And thanks as always to BW for getting to what was quite possibly where what I'd heard originally started. The idea of Nazi Christians is especially revolting!

neo-x wrote:

Byblos wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Byblos wrote:Then what brought about spiritual death? Note that whether or not one believes in original sin is irrelevant to my question (in case you were wondering). I'm asking you to specifically state the means by which spiritual death came about and how it was propagated to all of humankind.

Because every human has the capacity to do evil. It is an inherent potential and that makes us imperfect to begin with. A perfect being cannot do evil, such as God. I would ask you how was sin born or came into existence, sin existed before humans existed, did it not? Sin is an abnormality in God's intended purpose/design. Whatever is not perfect, is by virtue an abnormality.

If God created us in his own image and we (A&E) did not cause spiritual death to enter the world, aside from the implications this brings with respect to God's nature, would that not make God the author of sin (and not just that he allows it to happen for a greater purpose)?

Sin is a necessary result of free will. All free agents can do evil, sin is the manifestation of such potential, sin is the result, not the cause. The cause is 'not being perfect'. God is perfect so he can't sin, but if he going to create creatures that must resemble divine but also out of their own free will then that is what we see. Because god don't do absurdities. You can either make free agents with the potential of going against you or you can make robots but they won't be free.

It makes god who he is. You might as well ask whether he can make a stone heavy enough and can't lift it. If you introduce free wil then sin is refusing to the divine. Sin is not an entity, its the result of a bad choice and the capacity of of us making that choice. god does not make our choices, we do, so god can't be author of evil, since he only created choice for us to freely see the sense of doing what's right. we make the right choice we are saved, we make the wrong one and we are already dead. Sin is then, only the abnormal choice, the unnatural one.

Fair enough. In view of that, how would you interpret Romans 5:12 then? Who is this 'one man' through whom death has entered the world?

Byblos wrote:
Fair enough. In view of that, how would you interpret Romans 5:12 then? Who is this 'one man' through whom death has entered the world?

Byblos, that's exactly where I was headed with this.

And let's not avoid the question - IF Jesus said what Scripture records about Old Testament ("The Law and the Prophets") being God's word, how can ANY of it NOT be?

Here, Jesus refers to The Law and The Prophets (the rest of the OT besides The Law - the first five books) an unbreakable whole unit, of which, of course, Genesis is a part:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished."

Jesus' Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man:
"But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’"

"‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”

"Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”

"Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah ..."

If you deny the OT is Scriptural truth, then you have to deny what Jesus said in the New Testament.

And so, how do you do THAT?

Byblos wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Byblos wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Byblos wrote:Then what brought about spiritual death? Note that whether or not one believes in original sin is irrelevant to my question (in case you were wondering). I'm asking you to specifically state the means by which spiritual death came about and how it was propagated to all of humankind.

Because every human has the capacity to do evil. It is an inherent potential and that makes us imperfect to begin with. A perfect being cannot do evil, such as God. I would ask you how was sin born or came into existence, sin existed before humans existed, did it not? Sin is an abnormality in God's intended purpose/design. Whatever is not perfect, is by virtue an abnormality.

If God created us in his own image and we (A&E) did not cause spiritual death to enter the world, aside from the implications this brings with respect to God's nature, would that not make God the author of sin (and not just that he allows it to happen for a greater purpose)?

Sin is a necessary result of free will. All free agents can do evil, sin is the manifestation of such potential, sin is the result, not the cause. The cause is 'not being perfect'. God is perfect so he can't sin, but if he going to create creatures that must resemble divine but also out of their own free will then that is what we see. Because god don't do absurdities. You can either make free agents with the potential of going against you or you can make robots but they won't be free.

It makes god who he is. You might as well ask whether he can make a stone heavy enough and can't lift it. If you introduce free wil then sin is refusing to the divine. Sin is not an entity, its the result of a bad choice and the capacity of of us making that choice. god does not make our choices, we do, so god can't be author of evil, since he only created choice for us to freely see the sense of doing what's right. we make the right choice we are saved, we make the wrong one and we are already dead. Sin is then, only the abnormal choice, the unnatural one.

Fair enough. In view of that, how would you interpret <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Romans%205.12" class="lbsBibleRef" data-reference="Romans 5.12" data-version="nasb95" target="_blank">Romans 5:12</a> then? Who is this 'one man' through whom death has entered the world?

Ofcourse the story of Adam is being referenced. To make a point. Albeit I would readily concede that the author clearly considers adam to be factual and may i also add, believes in yec too.

As to the question of death, well Death was always there, imagine a planet with all living things on it reproducing and no one dying, it would be a disaster very soon. That is problematic on many fronts.

And as far as spiritual Death is concerned all men are born 'not perfect' therefore all need saving.