On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:49:13 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
> Vince wrote:
>> Watching the stars helps us
>> determine time, the seasons, etc.
>
> But what about the "signs." The Bible
> mentions not just times and seasons,
> but signs. What do you think that means?
When the moon is new, that's the sign that it's the beginning of a
new month. The spring equinox is the sign that spring has sprung. It's
all about telling time.
> Josephus noted that the destruction
> of Solomon's temple happened on
> the exact same date as the destruction
> of Herod's temple in 70 A.D. Was that a
> coincidence or did the signs
> of heaven properly mark it?
If that's true, then God had some reason for these things to happen
at the same TIME of the year. If astrology is real, then astrologers
would have been able to predict the destruction of Herod's temple. To the
best of my knowledge, they did not. Seeing a pattern by hindsight is
interesting, but it suggests nothing more than that God has a TIMEtable.
Predicting something based upon knowledge of those dates would be
impressive.
> Jesus died on passover, a date determined
> by astronomical observations. Coincidence?
Not coincidence. The TIME was determined by God to reinforce the
idea that Jesus is the real, perfect passover lamb. The alignment of the
planets and stars did not determine dates on the Israelites' calendar,
thus they determined nothing at all.
> The Christians in Acts 2 received the
> outpouring of the Holy Spirit on
> Shavuot, the date when Moses
> received the Ten Commandments on
> Sinai. Coincidence?
Assuming that this is true, then someday we can ask God the
significance of His using identical dates. The stars determined nothing.
> I could go on and on, but the point is that God seems to have a
> timetable for human affairs which correlates with the stars and
> planets.
"Seems to?" All of this is about something which you're not really
certain about?
Dates correlate with the moon and sun in the old Israelite calendar.
That's how God defined their calendar when He gave it to them. It has
nothing to do with the other planets and stars.
> Do you give this ANY merit at all....
No.
> or do you just not want to hear it?
Your question appears to be based upon the assumption that there are
only two possible attitudes for me to take, either I agree with you, or
I'm unwilling to listen due to some imperfection or failure on my part.
Perhaps you don't recongize this as an indirect, veiled, ad hominem
argument, which is, of course, useless for advancing understanding
through debate.
There's another possibility which you don't mention above: You're
wrong about all of this nonsense. Rather than using ad hominem arguments,
you'd do better to stick to the issue rather than discussing me.
> Vince wrote:
> > Astrology does not have theories about the universe.
> > A theory is testable and the results of those tests
> > are reproducable by other trained scientists.
> > Astrological myths are not the same as a theory.
>
> Ah, Vince. Think about what you just said.
> You speak like a pure scientist as if the
> only theories are scientific theories.
The very word "theory" is a scientific term, defined by scientists
for scientific usage. To use it to describe fables and fantasies is,
perhaps, a little dishonest.
> ... you have been programmed to think
> and say what you just said in this
> short paragraph quoted above.
That's another indirect ad hominem argument.
You can't possibly know that I've been programed in any fashion,
unless, like God, you can probe the depths of my mind. Are you claiming
that you can read minds?
> ... your worldview is that truth only comes
> through objective and testable means.
There you go again, telling me what my worldview is. I hope you
understand that's just another ad hominem argument. Please try a little
harder to stay with the issue under discussion?
> Vince wrote:
>> I don't believe that astrology foretold Jesus' birth.
>
> But the astrologers were the ones
> who came looking for him, the ones
> who Herod quizzed, the ones who
> said they saw his star. Why would they
> have done this if they did not use their
> understanding in astrology to
> look for him?
IMHO, they were led to Him by an angel. How can you know that their
astrology was the same as your modern understanding of astrology? You
can't know that. On the other hand, we know that God condemns using
astrology, and we know that He honored these magi by announcing Jesus'
birth to them. Would God so honor people who do the same sort of evil
things for which God condemned King Saul? I doubt it.
> Vince wrote:
>> The "star" did not act like a star.
>> It acted more like a spirit
>> manifested as a star;
>
> How do you know this?
> What gives you this perception?
Stars rise and set, just as the sun and moon rise and set. This star
stayed in front of the magi, leading them as they travelled west toward
Bethlehem. When they arrived, it hung there over Him. Stars don't do
that.
On the other hand, we know many angels were involved in announcing
His birth to the shepherds. It seems reasonable to me that God announced
His birth to the magi with an angel to lead them.
> Vince wrote:
> > the bible does equate the word star with angel
> > in some instances, so I suspect that this was
> > one of those instances.
>
> Why then does the Bible call them "magi"?
> Are you saying that these astrologers saw
> an angel instead of using their study of stars?
Yes, I believe they saw an angel.
> Vince wrote:
> > I ask again, where are we going with all of this?
>
> Well, I'm trying to explore our different
> mindsets, to show how we each
> have our own philosophy of things and
> approach matters with a perspective
> that comes from a variety of sources.
You don't need to show me that. I figured that out during the little
mock debates we had in the sixth grade. I was amazed at how differently
the other kids saw things. Every discussion and debate I've ever had
since that time reaffirms this idea.
I suspect that there's nobody else here in tt who doesn't already
know that we each have different perspectives, because we each have
different experiences and have had different sources of information
through the years. If I'm wrong, if there's somebody here who never knew
this before now, please speak up and let us know.
> How we interpret Scripture has much
> to do with how we live and the history
> of our personal experiences as well
> as to the operation of the Holy
> Spirit in our personal lives.
How we understand scripture is determined by God and how much He
wants to open our minds to understanding. He tells us that He gives
understanding to the humble. He gives eyes that see and ears to hear to
those who are humble, contrite, and tremble at His word. Proud and
rebellious people are without understanding regardless of how many
advanced degrees in philosphy or theology they might have.
I'm not suggesting that you disagree with me, because you are proud
and rebellious, and thus you have no understanding. I'm making the
general statement that God opening our minds to scripture is the one
essential factor in our understanding. Jesus had no formal training and
neither did the apostles, yet the doctors of the law, the lawyers, the
teachers, etc. were amazed at their understanding. Jesus' home town
neighbors were amazed at His understanding.
All of the diversity of exeperience and background becomes secondary
when we are one in heart and mind with Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit.
Rather than emphasizing diversity of background, perhaps we should be
emphsizing the very practical excercise of praying that God give us
humility and the understanding which comes to the humble person.
> It seems to me that much of your objection
> to Bill's earlier post, or perhaps the reason
> it went over your head ....
Over my head? OUCH !! Another ad hominem.
Your argument certainly depends a lot on ad hominems. Do you think
maybe perhaps this might maybe be a good indication that there's
something wrong with your logic?
> ... was because you have not worked
> through thinking about the questions
> he was addressing in that post.
Another ad hominem. Your argument depends upon a failing on my part,
i.e., that I failed to work through those questions. Perhaps I have
worked through all those questions, and I've come to a different, better
understanding than you have. Wouldn't it be better to stick with the
issues rather than my supposed failings, the existence of which are
indicated by no other evidence than the fact that I disagree with you?
> ... if nothing I have said thus far has
> stimulated your thinking even one bit ....
ZING!! The premise behind that is that it's MY thinking which needs
to be stimulated. That, of course, is an ad hominem argument.
> ... I am not the best communicator.
I disagree. You are very well spoken. Many of your ideas are wrong,
but you do state them clearly. ;)
vincent j. fulton
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you
ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to
send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
