I will be posting all my research here for the Topic which we are now focused on. This is a hidden page and I covet your input as you feel “so moved” (as we used ti say back in the day), in the comments section
There seems to be a real distinction between these two common words, that Christianity seems to have blurred somewhat. Deliberately? Well let’s try to find out.
I have also been working on “The case Against James” in which I have been trying to nut out what exactly the “Apostles Doctrine” was, that is mentioned in Acts. We can make some presumptions, based on how the Jerusalem church acted, and what it taught, and the judgements made by James, along with the actions of Peter, John, and Jude. Acts says that the church continued in the Apostles doctrine. Paul in Romans chapter 10 seems to indicate that the Apostles doctrine was crap, as I have indicated here. Then we have Jude’s comment that we should contend for the faith once given to the saints. We know who the saints would have been to Jude – they would have been old Testament apostles and prophets – people like Moses Joshua Isaiah et cetera. The point I’m making here is that the Apostles doctrine appeared to pivot on belief. When we check acts out, when Peter makes his defence before James issues his judgement in I think chapter 15, he says that the Gentiles would listen and believe. Now Peter had actually seen the risen Christ, whereas Gentile “believers” had not. Peter was acting on knowledge and asking others to act on belief. So will be making an appeal to etymology, the history of the new Testament and I suppose whatever else comes to mind. I’m dictating this, and don’t have enough patience to go back and capitalise what needs capitalised and punctuate what needs punctuating.
The etymology of belief is very interesting and can be found here.
Of particular interest is this little gem found on that page, “Meaning “conviction of the truth of a proposition or alleged fact without knowledge” is by 1530s; it is also “sometimes used to include the absolute conviction or certainty which accompanies knowledge” [Century Dictionary]. From c. 1200 as “a creed, essential doctrines of a religion or church, things held to be true as a matter of religious doctrine;” the general sense of “That which is believed” is by 1714.”
Especially definitions 1-4 Link here
Next I plan to check faith against knowledge using the greek rather than the english – look for direct contrasts then look for working english equivs.
Goal – to make this contrast as simple as possible without needless equivocity.
I have decided to approach this from the POV of thge big picture. here are my thoughts on nthat.
Big picture theology
Without a coherent big picture, we are left with the incoherent component parts of that picture.
Small windows into any big picture, can only become cohesive, when they are viewed through a common filter. The big picture should provide that filter.
If we make a study of biology, without first understanding and having studied the discipline of physics, we will end up drawing our own conclusions, from an understanding limited by our experiences in just biology. Without the superset of physics, the subsets of various other consequential disciplines will form themselves in their own image.
It is the difference between finding a recipe, and then locating the ingredients, against looking around my kitchen at the available ingredients, and wondering what I can make out of them.
Supersets must inform subsets and not the other way about, if we want to proceed intelligently and effectively.
It can be no different with Theology.
We often see in our dialogue with others how destructive it can be when we ignore this basic logical imperative.
What is your big picture of eternal intentions of God? That, and only that, will inform all your subsects, of grace, redemption, salvation, sanctification, predestination, glorification, justification, indeed all of the subsets of our theology are going to be prescribed by, and subscribed to, whatever superset from which we start.
It was no coincidence, that universalism was the prevailing doctrine of the church for the first 500 years of history. Think about that for a moment; the early church survived for 500 years, or to ut it another way, the early church survived for over twice as long as the USA has been a nation, without the dogmas of Roman Catholicism, Calvinism, Arminianism, and a host of competing theologies we see today.
Neither is it a coincidence, that’s some of the greatest thinkers down through history have been Universalists. Universalism is simply an umbrella term for many various expressions of faith, just as fundamental evangelicalism is an umbrella term for various other expressions of faith, even when they disagree in certain areas such as the differences between Southern Baptist, and Pentecostals.
Universalism simply declares, that in the eternal counsels of God, the Godhead determined that all of humanity would be “saved”. The only question that is undecided, is when that would happen. Ultimate reconciliation, is the belief that the full redemption of mankind is a future event, while Preterism, and Redemptionism, hold that it is an already done deal. From here on, I am going to address Redemptionism.
Redemptionism is the belief, that the eternal councils of God determined that all of humanity would be redeemed at the cross, reconciled to God at the cross, and that God and humanity have been one ever since, and that in this age, humanity has become God in the earth. Salvation, is the step-by-step a simulation and realization of that.
This superset by no means answers all of our questions, but it does give cohesion to all of its subsets.
Download of unrelated thoughts.
You shall be as god eden knowing good from evil. Does NOT preclude the possibility of other God characteristics
Satan raised himself ABOVE god
David you are gods
Jesus quoting that
Did not recieve the promise
Why? What Promise? And what did the promise, promise in fact?
Was it the promise to AbrahamM? If so why did no one get it until Jesus?
Jesus resurrection was culmination of creation.
Man had no faith
God has faith
Hn god has substance and evidence
Faith is about future knowing (I believe)
Redeemed humanity is about knowing with the God faith IN US inert(ish) but accessible
Write science fiction (did jews/)
Know about witty inventions
Tesla ford medical breakthroughs
Why has christianity always been too scared to call themselves “God in the earth” Motly because that is what Satan is alleged to have done and who wants to be associated with satan?Does their fave book not claim “As He was in the earth, so are we!”?
What is Pauls reference to “glorification”? If not that we are the righteousness of God in Christ.
Ancient Israel – God inhabited their praises but now inhabits US!
Q1 Why could God not have planned its this way in the first place?
In whose interests is it for us to NOT understand this?
Hid with Christ in God
I will now attempt to synthesize these download points relative to what we know of the “big picture” already.
The Gospels tell us that ALL His disciples fled – ALL!!!! The one who walked on water?? Fled!!!! The one who with Olympic event sized vanity, claimed that he was the one Jesus loved best? Fled!!!! The ones who saw Him on the mount of Transfiguration? Fled!!!! It just goes to show that the one thing that Christianity demands of its followers, FAITH, is impossible to muster, even in the presence of multiple miracles.
OT history also displays graphically the inability of mans thinking to embrace faith. All of those miracles we saw in the wilderness under MosesAnd Joshua, we are manifestly inadequate to convince men that God had everything in hand, which is the modern Christian definition of faith.
In the so called chapter of faith, Hebrews 11, where is is lkaimed that any of these OTR heroes used their OWN faith? If we assume that the early verses are accurate and that the worlds were formed by GOD’S faith, where do we suddenly switch to reference MAN’S faith?? If anything, it was fear that motivated most of these stories.