Right now the only person forming justification about what science isn’t, is you, and you are the one foaming at the mouth, making up absurdity about what atheists allegedly doing.
I'm not foaming at the mouth. What exactly did I say science isn't? Infallible? You agree with me on this, so has my sudden unexplained demonstration of alleged hydrophobia taken you as well?
So what? So is law and religion and any other endeavor of man. That you seem to think that's something special, like they didn't do that before Darwin because they didn't come to the same conclusions you come to I'm supposed to be impressed by this simple description? It's meaningless.
Question about the reasons
Also important curiosity is a wonderful need
I am very curious and more than space creatures
I want to know the psychological reasons, needs and desires in order to get conclusions
Understanding others' feelings is important so that I can communicate positively even with the matters
I heared that there a tribe that lives in the mountains
When they want to cut the tree
they apologizes to the tree for three days by speaks and says it is binding and explains the reasons for cutting the tree (the need)
We must have qualities that have mercy and do not diminish others feelings
with respect dude
GOD bless you
Know that you do not believe in God
but the sentence indicates that I want good for you
When should science be chosen over religion? If science has one conclusion and religion has another at what point do we accept science over religion? One view is that we should always believe science, even if it contradicts our most cherished religious beliefs. Another perspective is we should never abandon the 'truth' even though science appears to have completely proven our religious belief wrong. For many of us the truth will lie in between. We may believe in a God or gods that have the power to overcome the laws of the natural world.
The Baha'i perspective tends to favour science over religion but there are always exceptions.
God has endowed man with intelligence and reason whereby he is required to determine the verity of questions and propositions. If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible… – Abdu’l-Baha
Religion and Science are inter-twined with each other and cannot be separated. These are the two wings with which humanity must fly. One wing is not enough. Every religion which does not concern itself with science is mere tradition…. Therefore science, education and civilization are most important necessities for the full religious life. – Abdu’l-Baha
So where does the balance lie for you? What would you never give up from your religion and when would you defer to science instead? Are religion and science in harmony or are they fundamentally opposed and contradictory?
22. Jesus saw some babies nursing. He said to his disciples, "These nursing babies are like those who enter the (Father's) kingdom."
They said to him, "Then shall we enter the (Father's) kingdom as babies?"
Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]."
When should science be chosen over religion? If science has one conclusion and religion has another at what point do we accept science over religion? One view is that we should always believe science, even if it contradicts our most cherished religious beliefs. Another perspective is we should never abandon the 'truth' even though science appears to have completely proven our religious belief wrong. For many of us the truth will lie in between. We may believe in a God or gods that have the power to overcome the laws of the natural world.
The Baha'i perspective tends to favour science over religion but there are always exceptions.
God has endowed man with intelligence and reason whereby he is required to determine the verity of questions and propositions. If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible… – Abdu’l-Baha
Religion and Science are inter-twined with each other and cannot be separated. These are the two wings with which humanity must fly. One wing is not enough. Every religion which does not concern itself with science is mere tradition…. Therefore science, education and civilization are most important necessities for the full religious life. – Abdu’l-Baha
http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/bic/COL/col-5.html
So where does the balance lie for you? What would you never give up from your religion and when would you defer to science instead? Are religion and science in harmony or are they fundamentally opposed and contradictory?
Isaac Newton, a father, or father of science, apparently wrote more about the bible than he did science. He apparently used the OT as an entry point into science. When one surpasses the insights of Newton, then they can comment on their better view. A problem being that most of the bible is a sealed book and the "wicked" have no "understanding" (Daniel 12:10) & (Matthew 13:13), whereas science is basically theories based on approximations, as any observation taints the results. F does not equal ma, but it is very good approximation at low speeds.
3rd question, it depends first off on what type of experiments you are performing and it depends on if you are talking 1 million “successful” experiments or 1 million unsuccessful experiments. You didn’t indicate which.
If the former, then your experiments have successfully verified the theory.
And, if the later, then it wouldn’t even be scientific theory. Failure of 1 million experiments should have happened during the “hypothesis” stage, not when it is a “scientific theory”.
Both evolution biology and the Big Bang cosmology are valid and verified “SCIENTIFIC THEORY”, because all the available evidences confirmed each one, that we have better understanding than we ever did before when each one started out, respectively with Darwin (1859), and with Friedmann (1922), Robertson (1924-25) & Lemaître (1927).
Discoveries (as in evidences, not mere experiments) have been made since that time, but both still have some unanswered questions.
For examples, in the Big Bang theory, we have confirmed the predictions back in 1948, made by Gamow, Alpher and Herman, regarding to the Primordial Nucleosynthesis (or the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, BBN) and to the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR in the Recombination Epoch), first in 1964, then more powerful radio telescopes and from space telescopes like WMAP and Planck space probe during 2000s.
However earlier epochs (earlier than BBN epoch), are still hypothetical and theoretical.
So far, the only physical cosmology getting evidences and verifiable data, come from the Big Bang camp.
All other alternatives, from astrophysicists such as the late Hawking (eg Multiverse model), and Penrose (eg Conformal Cyclical Cosmology or CCC), etc, are mathematically brilliant in their alternative models, but untestable at stage...or in likelihood probably never be verifiable.
Tell me, nPeace, do you have a better alternative to the physical cosmology?
As to evolution, the large number of evidences available for evolution, have already outstripped all old and recent alternative hypotheses, and not just in the fossils department (palaeontology), but aid in understanding medicines (eg bacterial and viral diseases), in molecular biology, and other various biological and biochemical fields.
I don't understand why you believe evolution aided in understanding medicines (eg bacterial and viral diseases), and then you include molecular biology, and other various biological and biochemical fields.
Can you explain that to me please?
What aided in understanding medicine... evolution, or biology?
How do you explain medical professionals that refute evolution theory? How do they practice medicine?
The only way to dislodge evolution is too offer better explanation as to why species changed over time (hence biodiversity), with better supporting and testable evidences, not your personal dislike for evolution because of religious reasons.
For one thing, I don't think most Christians expect to rewrite a script written by the elites of this system, and they are not going to try.
All Christians are doing is 1. publicly declaring their position, and 2. sharing the truth with others. In doing so, they also can help the unsuspecting to see below the murky waters, and prevent themselves becoming victims to the "Great Whites".
2 Corinthians 10:4-6 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. 5For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are bringing every thought into captivity to make it obedient to the Christ;6and we are prepared to inflict punishment for every disobedience, as soon as your own obedience is complete.
1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, but doing so with a mild temper and deep respect.
Acts 26:19-29 19 “Therefore, King A·gripʹpa, I did not become disobedient to the heavenly vision, 20 but to those in Damascus first and then to those in Jerusalem, and over all the country of Ju·deʹa, and also to the nations, I was bringing the message that they should repent and turn to God by doing works that befit repentance. 21 This is why the Jews seized me in the temple and tried to kill me. 22However, because I have experienced the help that is from God, I continue to this day bearing witness to both small and great, saying nothing except what the Prophets as well as Moses stated was going to take place - 23that the Christ was to suffer and that as the first to be resurrected from the dead, he was going to proclaim light both to this people and to the nations.” 24Now as Paul was saying these things in his defense, Festus said in a loud voice: “You are going out of your mind, Paul! Great learning is driving you out of your mind!” 25But Paul said: “I am not going out of my mind, Your Excellency Festus, but I am speaking words of truth and of a sound mind.26 For a fact, the king to whom I am speaking so freely well knows about these things; I am convinced that not one of these things escapes his notice, for none of this has been done in a corner. 27 Do you, King A·gripʹpa, believe the Prophets? I know that you believe.” 28 But A·gripʹpa said to Paul: “In a short time you would persuade me to become a Christian.” 29 At this Paul said: “I wish to God that whether in a short time or in a long time, not only you but also all those who hear me today would become men such as I am, with the exception of these prison bonds.”
Creationists like me? Have you asked them?
I find skeptics tend to assume what Creationists know, and believe, and oftentimes they are wrong... like now.
I'm sure you have seen plenty, but I guess it won't hurt to show you again. Stay tuned.
Do you mean the kind of conclusive evidence that evolution has? What conclusive evidence is that?
You give me yours, and let me see if it beats ours.
If you going to say “God did it”, and start quoting from Genesis 1, 2 & 3, then I have already gone through these chapters, backwards and forwards, sideways and ups and downs, read between the lines and so on. It offer nothing of scientific value, because it never explain, and impossible to test.
Can you turn dust into living human being? Can eating fruit give you knowledge? Can serpent really talk?
These are the things Genesis claimed to have happened. If you can replicate any one of these, as your experiments, I will convert to whatever church you belong to.
But when you start wrong, how can you ever end right?
I made a coconut bread.
Do you think it reasonable for someone to say, "How is it possible to make coconut into bread"?
We might think that's silly, but isn't it true that a very small child might ask a question like that? Why?
He doesn't understand, but if he understood what went into bread making... "Ah." He gets the picture.
Christians have continually said it as plain as possible, you don't understand the Bible by picking it up, and trying to pick it apart critically. In fact, the one who does so might as well be a one year old, trying to read a dictionary.
The Bible is not a science text book, or encyclopedia. So it doesn't go into detail on every possible thing it mentions. The one who understands that, and read it to understand its message, will easily grasp, relate to, and appreciate the Bible for what it is - a message from God.
So God did not just pick up a handful of dirt, and "Abracadabra" Poof! Man was made.
Eating the fruit did not magically Poof! give the human couple knowledge in the way skeptics read it.
The serpent did not say a word.
If one reads the Bible with an open mind, one will get the details.
If one reads the Bible as skeptics do, then they will go away just as they came.
This certainly is not a problem for those who acknowledge that God is, and recognize the Bible as his word. (2 Corinthians 4:3, 4; 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12 ) It is the world's oldest book, and most widely translated, available to over 90% of the world's population.
It's probably the most scrutinized, and opposed. Yet it is enduring, and beating the odds. Hmm. Why?
Hello my brother
Thank you for your words and it is true that I did not understand the question
I understood and my appetite was open to answer
What evidence do you have that a personality (the culprit) is responsible for crime
the crime tools
Why do we always believe that the offender has committed a crime?
He may have done this work as a punishment or human grant because this person was carrying a demon
Why do we believe that crimes are real? Maybe crimes should have been committed in order for the community to be corrected in their assistance
Many billionaires do not spend social aid
example
I have a machine where I put a dollar and get a Pepsi
Is this deafness tool found by default or is it real
Coincidence does not make a creature
The most important science is knowing facts of creator
Knowing the truth is like an investigative act that does not accept the hypothesis of doubt, but evidence
The existence of the universe and the stars refers to the causative
And this culprit believe it is God
And not necessarily bring evidence because there is a corpses in the heavens and there is a causative
We believe that he is the Creator, and we must respect and respect him by believing in him
This creator said this information to the first source Adam
He said, They must respect me and believe that I am the cause and creator
But humans because of the movements began generations from scratch because of the loss of information and facts such as a person born without sight and walked without seeing anything and difficult to convince him
Note
I am sorry to have delayed the answer for a reason
I went walking and there was a tree watching me when she saw us caught me and threw me over the sky
The sky took me and rained me on a remote island
I cried there
The nature there sympathized with me and began to make me a boat
Automatically, the metal turned into cutting tools and began cutting wood, then iron to screws and cotton to a sail
Then I went home now and opened the laptop and now write the reply
Please believe this story please
So you have verified the theory, not replicated it. Yes?
So yes and no, you have verified the theory, or yes and no, you have replicated the theory?
Thank you.
I don't understand why you believe evolution aided in understanding medicines (eg bacterial and viral diseases), and then you include molecular biology, and other various biological and biochemical fields.
Can you explain that to me please?
What aided in understanding medicine... evolution, or biology?
How do you explain medical professionals that refute evolution theory? How do they practice medicine?
For one thing, I don't think most Christians expect to rewrite a script written by the elites of this system, and they are not going to try.
All Christians are doing is 1. publicly declaring their position, and 2. sharing the truth with others. In doing so, they also can help the unsuspecting to see below the murky waters, and prevent themselves becoming victims to the "Great Whites".
2 Corinthians 10:4-6 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. 5For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are bringing every thought into captivity to make it obedient to the Christ;6and we are prepared to inflict punishment for every disobedience, as soon as your own obedience is complete.
1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, but doing so with a mild temper and deep respect.
Acts 26:19-29 19 “Therefore, King A·gripʹpa, I did not become disobedient to the heavenly vision, 20 but to those in Damascus first and then to those in Jerusalem, and over all the country of Ju·deʹa, and also to the nations, I was bringing the message that they should repent and turn to God by doing works that befit repentance. 21 This is why the Jews seized me in the temple and tried to kill me. 22However, because I have experienced the help that is from God, I continue to this day bearing witness to both small and great, saying nothing except what the Prophets as well as Moses stated was going to take place - 23that the Christ was to suffer and that as the first to be resurrected from the dead, he was going to proclaim light both to this people and to the nations.” 24Now as Paul was saying these things in his defense, Festus said in a loud voice: “You are going out of your mind, Paul! Great learning is driving you out of your mind!” 25But Paul said: “I am not going out of my mind, Your Excellency Festus, but I am speaking words of truth and of a sound mind.26 For a fact, the king to whom I am speaking so freely well knows about these things; I am convinced that not one of these things escapes his notice, for none of this has been done in a corner. 27 Do you, King A·gripʹpa, believe the Prophets? I know that you believe.” 28 But A·gripʹpa said to Paul: “In a short time you would persuade me to become a Christian.” 29 At this Paul said: “I wish to God that whether in a short time or in a long time, not only you but also all those who hear me today would become men such as I am, with the exception of these prison bonds.”
Creationists like me? Have you asked them?
I find skeptics tend to assume what Creationists know, and believe, and oftentimes they are wrong... like now.
I'm sure you have seen plenty, but I guess it won't hurt to show you again. Stay tuned.
Do you mean the kind of conclusive evidence that evolution has? What conclusive evidence is that?
You give me yours, and let me see if it beats ours.
But when you start wrong, how can you ever end right?
I made a coconut bread.
Do you think it reasonable for someone to say, "How is it possible to make coconut into bread"?
We might think that's silly, but isn't it true that a very small child might ask a question like that? Why?
He doesn't understand, but if he understood what went into bread making... "Ah." He gets the picture.
Christians have continually said it as plain as possible, you don't understand the Bible by picking it up, and trying to pick it apart critically. In fact, the one who does so might as well be a one year old, trying to read a dictionary.
The Bible is not a science text book, or encyclopedia. So it doesn't go into detail on every possible thing it mentions. The one who understands that, and read it to understand its message, will easily grasp, relate to, and appreciate the Bible for what it is - a message from God.
So God did not just pick up a handful of dirt, and "Abracadabra" Poof! Man was made.
Eating the fruit did not magically Poof! give the human couple knowledge in the way skeptics read it.
The serpent did not say a word.
If one reads the Bible with an open mind, one will get the details.
If one reads the Bible as skeptics do, then they will go away just as they came.
This certainly is not a problem for those who acknowledge that God is, and recognize the Bible as his word. (2 Corinthians 4:3, 4; 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12 ) It is the world's oldest book, and most widely translated, available to over 90% of the world's population.
It's probably the most scrutinized, and opposed. Yet it is enduring, and beating the odds. Hmm. Why?
Isaac Newton, a father, or father of science, apparently wrote more about the bible than he did science. He apparently used the OT as an entry point into science. When one surpasses the insights of Newton, then they can comment on their better view. A problem being that most of the bible is a sealed book and the "wicked" have no "understanding" (Daniel 12:10) & (Matthew 13:13), whereas science is basically theories based on approximations, as any observation taints the results. F does not equal ma, but it is very good approximation at low speeds.
1 Peter 3:15But sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, but doing so with a mild temper and deep respect.
According to Paul, he defended his position before men he deemed as "reputed" "pillars".(Galatians 2:9), who were under prior direction to leave the tares alone (Matthew 13:28-30). Paul, as chief tare, and sower of tare seed gets a free pass until the "end of the age" (Matthew 13:30). That applies to his followers, the other tares.
Good luck in your faith brother
I follow my heart and rest assured of it (no trinity)
I would like to refer to a very important issue which is that I respect you and respect your opinion
Hello my brother
Thank you for your words and it is true that I did not understand the question
I understood and my appetite was open to answer
What evidence do you have that a personality (the culprit) is responsible for crime
the crime tools
Why do we always believe that the offender has committed a crime?
He may have done this work as a punishment or human grant because this person was carrying a demon
Why do we believe that crimes are real? Maybe crimes should have been committed in order for the community to be corrected in their assistance
Many billionaires do not spend social aid
example
I have a machine where I put a dollar and get a Pepsi
Is this deafness tool found by default or is it real
Coincidence does not make a creature
The most important science is knowing facts of creator
Knowing the truth is like an investigative act that does not accept the hypothesis of doubt, but evidence
The existence of the universe and the stars refers to the causative
And this culprit believe it is God
And not necessarily bring evidence because there is a corpses in the heavens and there is a causative
We believe that he is the Creator, and we must respect and respect him by believing in him
This creator said this information to the first source Adam
He said, They must respect me and believe that I am the cause and creator
But humans because of the movements began generations from scratch because of the loss of information and facts such as a person born without sight and walked without seeing anything and difficult to convince him
Note
I am sorry to have delayed the answer for a reason
I went walking and there was a tree watching me when she saw us caught me and threw me over the sky
The sky took me and rained me on a remote island
I cried there
The nature there sympathized with me and began to make me a boat
Automatically, the metal turned into cutting tools and began cutting wood, then iron to screws and cotton to a sail
Then I went home now and opened the laptop and now write the reply
Please believe this story please
Dear brother
I apologize very much but I was trying to help from my heart honestly
I believe that faith is a gift from God and gives it to people who in their hearts have mercy and far from cruelty
I do not mean to insult you
It's not like that
We have in Islam they say
A person who works throughout the life of the people of Islam, but at the end of his life changed his religion and becomes an infidel and loses the Hereafter
And vice versa, a person who works throughout his life the people of disbelief and then in the last age believes in God and die believer and win the prize
You need to remember science is about testing the hypothesis, and testing means that you are trying refute or find faults with the hypothesis, are just important as trying verifying.
Another word for “falsifiability” or “falsification”, other than “testability”, is “REFUTABILITY”.
While scientists are formulating their respective hypotheses, the only way to be objective is to to find out if the hypothesis is falsifiable (testable or refutable), before they actually perform the tests.
If, for example, the “potential” or “proposed” hypothesis cannot be tested, then it isn’t falsifiable or refutable. If so, then his or her work isn’t even a “hypothesis”.
Being a falsifiable hypothesis doesn’t mean the hypothesis is true...not yet. The hypothesis hasn’t been tested yet.
The hypothesis is never true or false by default. Only the tests or evidences can determine if the hypothesis is true or false.
But if the hypothesis is falsifiable, then the scientist must figure out how he or she could possibly test the hypothesis; and must document in the hypothesis just HOW the hypothesis will be tested. The tests or experiments must be rigorous enough, that there is a big chance that his or her hypothesis will fail.
If the hypothesis is able to withstand 100 or 1000 experiments, then the hypothesis has high probability of being true. But if hypothesis failed in most or all of the 100 or 1000 experiments, then it is high probability that the hypothesis has been refuted.
If the hypothesis failed in their experiments, repeatedly, the scientist can do one of two things:
He or she can give it up and put refuted hypothesis in the trash can or put it through shredder.
Or the scientist can put the hypothesis through a different or alternative type of experiment.
If the hypothesis continued to fail repeatedly in the second set of test, then hypothesis has been thoroughly debunked the scientist should definitely throw away the refuted hypothesis.
Michael Behe, a biochemist who have joined Discovery Institute (DI) and followed Intelligent Design (ID), wrote his proposition that support the Designer, called the Irreducible Complexity (IC).
The Irreducible Complexity failed to be falsifiable, because there are no way to test the Designer, therefore it isn’t even a hypothesis. And if the Designer cannot even be tested, it cannot be a scientific theory.
Irreducible Complexity is pseudoscience garbage, and should have long ago being discarded. But Behe refused to ditch his unfalsifiable and untestable model. And the Discovery Institute also refused to give up on Behe’s unfalsifiable paper, so they continued to pour money, not on science, but promoting IC in dishonest propaganda campaign.
Michael Behe is an example of a biased and dishonest scientist. And he isn’t the only dishonest scientist.
So is Stephen C. Meyer (a geophysicist), one of the front man for Intelligent Design. Meyer together with the theologian Phillip E. Johnson (no science qualifications whatsoever) were responsible for creating Intelligent Design. They were responsible for recruiting Behe into their rank, and Behe was supposed to be their big gun, during the civil court case in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005).
Behe bringing up IC with Intelligent Design, only made matters worse for Behe himself, since it demonstrated his IC was just as pseudoscience as ID was pseudoscience.
Yes there should be. Just like there should be harmony between races. Everyone is different, thinks different, believes different, etc. Being different is not a reason for persecution. Sadly even as much as we have advanced, it hasn't changed as much as it should have.
“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.” -- Dalai Lama XIV
I think when religion strays too far from science, it becomes dangerous.
The opposite is even worse. When people are no longer considered sacred but just molecular machines executing the laws of physics there is no restraint or implications in immoral behavior. This is why we have so many wars and weapons of mass destruction because science has taught us religion has no value.
Science is used more to kill and hurt people than it has helped them.
The opposite is even worse. When people are no longer considered sacred but just molecular machines executing the laws of physics there is no restraint or implications in immoral behavior. This is why we have so many wars and weapons of mass destruction because science has taught us religion has no value.
Science is used more to kill and hurt people than it has helped them.
Turfing religion frees humanity to devise much better morality, based on reason and goodwill rather than on the scribblings of ignorant savages.
You are oblivious to the many good things science has provided, such as increased crop yields, increased life expectancy,, technical conveniences such as the computer you used to send your post, ecological awareness etc.
It is the religious societies that promote and perpetuate ancient barbarities.
According to Paul, he defended his position before men he deemed as "reputed" "pillars".(Galatians 2:9), who were under prior direction to leave the tares alone (Matthew 13:28-30). Paul, as chief tare, and sower of tare seed gets a free pass until the "end of the age" (Matthew 13:30). That applies to his followers, the other tares.
Could you explain please.
Paul did not defend himself against his fellow brothers, as far as one reads. Nor was he a tare, or sower of tares. Nor are his fellow brothers.
The tares are apostates that flourished in the second century - those who profess Christianity, but produce rotten fruit. Their planting took place long after Paul's conversion. Acts 20:29, 30
Could you explain please.
Paul did not defend himself against his fellow brothers, as far as one reads. Nor was he a tare, or sower of tares. Nor are his fellow brothers.
The tares are apostates that flourished in the second century - those who profess Christianity, but produce rotten fruit. Their planting took place long after Paul's conversion. Acts 20:29, 30
The parable of the tares took place before Paul even started stoning the followers of Yeshua. Yeshua directed the disciples he was speaking too, to leave the tares alone. The tares were to exist until the "end of the age" (Matthew 13:40), when the "tares" would be gathered up "first", burned up, and then the "wheat" was to be gathered into the barn" (Matthew 13:30). The church built on the tree of Paul (Matthew 7:16-17) has been producing bad fruit for a long time. Examples being the Inquisitions, the ongoing pedophile scandals, Vatican bank scandals, etc. Trees producing bad fruit will be cut down and "thrown into the fire" (Matthew 7:19).
Paul's argument was to forget circumcision for the Gentiles. This is the fulfillment of Zechariah 11:10, whereas Paul was one of the two staffs taken to "pasture the flock doomed to slaughter" (Zechariah 11:7).
The parable of the tares took place before Paul even started stoning the followers of Yeshua. Yeshua directed the disciples he was speaking too, to leave the tares alone. The tares were to exist until the "end of the age" (Matthew 13:40), when the "tares" would be gathered up "first", burned up, and then the "wheat" was to be gathered into the barn" (Matthew 13:30). The church built on the tree of Paul (Matthew 7:16-17) has been producing bad fruit for a long time. Examples being the Inquisitions, the ongoing pedophile scandals, Vatican bank scandals, etc. Trees producing bad fruit will be cut down and "thrown into the fire" (Matthew 7:19).
Paul's argument was to forget circumcision for the Gentiles. This is the fulfillment of Zechariah 11:10, whereas Paul was one of the two staffs taken to "pasture the flock doomed to slaughter" (Zechariah 11:7).
We first need to identify the tares, and when they sprang up. Do you agree?
Peter mentioned when, in the book of Acts (Acts 20:29, 30), and Paul mentioned when in 2 Thessalonians 2.
Recall Paul also said...
1 Timothy 4: 1 . . .the inspired word clearly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired statements and teachings of demons,
3, For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.
4 They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.
...and Peter had more to say on it. 2 Peter 2:1
Remember that during that time, there were false teachers (Sadducee, Pharisees, Scribes), but these were not viewed as the tares. So Jesus had a period in the future in mind.
When do you think that might have been?
Or do you believe it started before Jesus arrived on earth? Surely it couldn't have been then.
