What did the church fathers believe concerning Genesis?

[robrecht]

Actually no, the belief in Revelation from the perspective of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is not necessarily based on evidence. Your seeking a false humanist rational and logical justification of Revelation based on 'evidence?'. If I was going down that road I would be a strong agnostic/atheist, because if all the 'evidence' of the history of humanity is taken into consideration claims of the existence of God and Revelation are illusive unfounded claims grounded simply on the natural humanist evolution of culture and society of humanity.

You are entirely missing my point. I did not say anything at all about Jewish, Christian, or Islamic belief in revelation being based on evidence. I was merely speaking of the basis of your belief in an historical Adam and Eve living 6,000 years ago and receiving a revelation from God about monotheism.

[shunyadragon]

You are entirely missing my point. I did not say anything at all about Jewish, Christian, or Islamic belief in revelation being based on evidence. I was merely speaking of the basis of your belief in an historical Adam and Eve living 6,000 years ago and receiving a revelation from God about monotheism.

No I am not missing the point, whatever that point is??? Unless you are changing your point as requiring evidence. Belief in a monotheistic God, and the nature of Revelation is not based on 'evidence?'. Again my answer is clear and specific. If you desire to ground this discussion in 'evidence,' your in trouble.

Actually no, the belief in Revelation from the perspective of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is not necessarily based on evidence. Your seeking a false humanist rational and logical justification of Revelation based on 'evidence?'. If I was going down that road I would be a strong agnostic/atheist, because if all the 'evidence' of the history of humanity is taken into consideration claims of the existence of God and Revelation are illusive unfounded claims grounded simply on the natural humanist evolution of culture and society of humanity.

There is evidence in history for a broader view of an evolving spiritual, and cultural nature of humanity of all history that would support a Theistic progressive Revelation, and a universal relationship between humanity and God. There is more evidence for this than a static concept of Revelation that is limited to one or a select cultures, places or time, as believed by Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Question: Do you believe Moses was a real person. What is your evidence?

[robrecht]

No I am not missing the point, whatever that point is???

If you do not know what my point is, clearly you have missed it. If you cannot state what my point is, I will gladly restate it for you yet again.

Unless you are changing your point as requiring evidence. Belief in a monotheistic God, and the nature of Revelation is not based on 'evidence?'. Again my answer is clear and specific. If you desire to ground this discussion in 'evidence,' your [sic] in trouble.

Actually no, the belief in Revelation from the perspective of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is not necessarily based on evidence. Your [sic] seeking a false humanist rational and logical justification of Revelation based on 'evidence?'. If I was going down that road I would be a strong agnostic/atheist, because if all the 'evidence' of the history of humanity is taken into consideration[,] claims of the existence of God and Revelation are illusive unfounded claims grounded simply on the natural humanist evolution of culture and society of humanity.

There is evidence in history for a broader view of an evolving spiritual, [sic] and cultural nature of humanity of all history that would support a Theistic progressive Revelation, and a universal relationship between humanity and God. There is more evidence for this than a static concept of Revelation that is limited to one or a select cultures, places or time, as believed by Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

I do not disagree with most of this, but all of it is completely beside the point.

[shunyadragon]

If you do not know what my point is, clearly you have missed it. If you cannot state what my point is, I will gladly restate it for you yet again.

I do not disagree with most of this, but all of it is completely beside the point.

As far as I am concerned your point was this request for evidence.

What evidence do you have that Adam and Eve were monotheists? Are you relying on an historicist reading of Genesis and the Qur'an for this view? By the way, this is the very first time I have ever discussed Adam and Eve's monotheism with you.

If I missed the point. What specifically are you expecting concerning evidence?

You also believe Adam and Eve did not exist. If you do not disagree with most of what I wrote, your questions should be answered. The problem persists in your request for 'evidence?'. You said 'most,' please clarify. My answers do not change.

Inherent in the belief is that in progressive Revelation, humans corrupt Revelation, for which there is historical evidence. I believe God is unconditionally Monotheistic, and the Revelation to Adam would be consistent with all Revelation if one believes monotheism is the true nature of God.

[Adrift]

Your seeking a false humanist rational

You're

[Adrift]

If you desire to ground this discussion in 'evidence,' your in trouble.

You're

[shunyadragon]

You're

Your keyboard failed?!?!!?

[Adrift]

Your keyboard failed?!?!!?

Hey, you got that one right! If you find the your/you're distinction confusing, just imagine the sentence with "you are" in its place.

[robrecht]

As far as I am concerned your point was this request for evidence.

If I missed the point. What specifically are you expecting concerning evidence?

You also believe Adam and Eve did not exist. If you do not disagree with most of what I wrote, your questions should be answered. The problem persists in your request for 'evidence?'. You said 'most,' please clarify. My answers do not change.

Inherent in the belief is that in progressive Revelation, humans corrupt Revelation, for which there is historical evidence. I believe God is unconditionally Monotheistic, and the Revelation to Adam would be consistent with all Revelation if one believes monotheism is the true nature of God.

Not exactly. I was not expecting any evidence from you because I know none exists. The point is that because you have no evidence of Adam and Eve receiving any revelation of monotheism some 6,000 years ago, your belief in such can only be based upon an historicist reading of Genesis, the Qur'an, and your Baha'i holy scriptures. Obviously the the latter two are, in part, dependent upon Genesis.

The only part of your other, off-topic discussion that I disagreed with is your overly simplistic and theologically naive characterization of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as having only a static concept of revelation.

[shunyadragon]

Not exactly. I was not expecting any evidence from you because I know none exists. The point is that because you have no evidence of Adam and Eve receiving any revelation of monotheism some 6,000 years ago, your belief in such can only be based upon an historicist reading of Genesis, the Qur'an, and your Baha'i holy scriptures. Obviously the the latter two are, in part, dependent upon Genesis.

I actually stated this and you said I missed the point. You need to work on you communication skills.

The only part of your other, off-topic discussion that I disagreed with is your overly simplistic and theologically naive characterization of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as having only a static concept of revelation.

Facts are facts. Each Religion rejects future Messianic Revelation and scripture beyond their own Revelation.

You did not answer the question; Do you believe Moses was a real person, and Exodus took place as described in the Torah. What is your evidence?

[shunyadragon]

You are entirely missing my point. I did not say anything at all about Jewish, Christian, or Islamic belief in revelation being based on evidence. I was merely speaking of the basis of your belief in an historical Adam and Eve living 6,000 years ago and receiving a revelation from God about monotheism.

Bolded; Why not evidence? You were apparently expected evidence from me, and you seemed to know there was no evidence before you asked. Are you proposing a double standard here?

As usual you are pushing this thread off topic. After you answer the questions let's get back on topic.

[robrecht]

I actually stated this and you said I missed the point. You need to work on you communication skills.

Where did you state "this" and what exactly do you mean by "this"? If you can be more explicit, I think I can clarify for you again exactly where you missed my point.

Facts are facts. Each Religion rejects future Messianic Revelation and scripture beyond their own Revelation.

You did not answer the question; Do you believe Moses was a real person, and Exodus took place as described in the Torah. What is your evidence?

No, I cannot answer questions that you subsequently add to your posts. When will you learn this basic fact? In answer to your added question, I do not know if Moses was a partly legendary or purely literary figure.

[robrecht]

Bolded; Why not evidence? You were apparently expected evidence from me, and you seemed to know there was no evidence before you asked. Are you proposing a double standard here?

As usual you are pushing this thread off topic. After you answer the questions let's get back on topic.

Actually, you are the one who has been exploring off-topic areas that are beside the point, because you have missed my point and continue to do so here. I have not proposed a double standard. I merely asked if your own belief in an historical Adam and Eve receiving a revelation regarding monotheism approximately 6,000 years ago was based on evidence or ultimately based on an historicist reading of Genesis. That your modern belief in an historical Adam and Eve is based on an historicist reading of Genesis is certainly relevant to your own interest in the even more historicist readings, among other nonhistoricist readings of Genesis, found among ancient church fathers.