beliving the Bible literally vs not (2)

[christianmomof3]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "beliving the Bible literally vs not"

 

[Metal Minister]

What do you know, we rolled it.

 

[Metal Minister]

Anyway, my last post on idols and such, but here is an excellent example of what people may think when they see people praying before statues:

( Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego )

Not saying its the case, but it may be what runs through peoples minds.

 

[Rhamiel]

Images of Jesus are cool, because He became flesh He has become something we can (or could) see.

and Jesus uses the "imagery" of the first person of the Trinity being the Father
so paternal images are acceptable to use for God

though, on a personal note, I am far less comfortable with that

 

[Metal Minister]

and Jesus uses the "imagery" of the first person of the Trinity being the Father
so paternal images are acceptable to use for God

though, on a personal note, I am far less comfortable with that

I agree, because God the Father has no form that we can conceive of, as He is spirit only. I think making an image of the Father is iffy at best, and should probably be avoided.

 

[Rhamiel]

Anyway, my last post on idols and such, but here is an excellent example of what people may think when they see people praying before statues:

( Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego )

Not saying its the case, but it may be what runs through peoples minds.

yeah... I get that... like I see threads started here (sometimes by members of the SDA) and it shows pictures Catholic devotions and I am just like "this is kind of FUBU" but I can not really say that because then it sounds like I am trying to be secretive....

 

[Metal Minister]

As an aside, since God is the Alpha and Omega, and knows the beginning from the end, is it possible in Genesis, where He says "Let Us make man in Our image" perhaps God was drawing on the earthly form Jesus would later take and meant that by "Our image"? Just a little stream of conscious thought there. Don't mind me!

 

[Fireinfolding]

Anyway, my last post on idols and such, but here is an excellent example of what people may think when they see people praying before statues:

( Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego )

Not saying its the case, but it may be what runs through peoples minds.

And those three get looked upon as if they are crazy

They sure stand out (and up) in that crowd lol

 

[Metal Minister]

yeah... I get that... like I see threads started here (sometimes by members of the SDA) and it shows pictures Catholic devotions and I am just like "this is kind of FUBU" but I can not really say that because then it sounds like I am trying to be secretive....

Oh you sneaky Catholic types! Won't let us in on your secretive meetings and statue worship! Lololololol!!!!!!!

 

[Rhamiel]

Oh you sneaky Catholic types! Won't let us in on your secretive meetings and statue worship! Lololololol!!!!!!!

lol we are kind of getting off topic
but I do not mind
like, as far as devotions to saints go
we do not say that anyone has to do it
you can be a Catholic and never pray to any of the saints
but, we think that if you want to do it
well that is perfectly fine too

 

[Assyrian]

The word used in the KJV as "figure" is tupos, which is translated contextually as "type" in some other translations, notably the ESV.

"Types" are frequent in scripture, but that doesn't make them non-literal. Adam is a "Type" in that one man started this mess and another finished it. Paul did not regard Adam as mythical.

As you say types can be real people and events, but they are being interpreted figuratively or allegorically not literally. For example in 1Cor 10 where Paul uses tupos twice(vs 6&11), Paul says the rock Moses struck in the wilderness is Jesus. He isn't saying Christ was incarnated or lithified as a rock, instead he is interpreting the rock figuratively. In the same chapter he describes crossing of the Red Sea was being 'baptised' in Moses. He is using real events but interpreting the non literally.

What you need to realise as well is that while types are often historical people and events, and typology was restricted around the fourth century to real people and events, in the first and second century a type could also be something purely figurative, for example a tree in a vision could be described as a tupos or type.

So Paul saying Adam was a type of Jesus really does not tell us if he thought Adam was historical or not. What it does tells us is that a figurative interpretation of Adam is legitimate and it warns us we should not assume Paul is speaking literally when he mentions someone he tells us he interpreted figuratively.

 

[Metal Minister]

And those three get looked upon as if they are crazy

They sure stand out (and up) in that crowd lol

Those that stand up for God often do stand out, and are treated equally as badly for it. But Jesus told us it would happen, so in a way, when it happens, its kind of affirming.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Those that stand up for God often do stand out, and are treated equally as badly for it. But Jesus told us it would happen, so in a way, when it happens, its kind of affirming.

Your picture was perfect for the point.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

i'll vote .. NOT ..

 

[Rhamiel]

Your picture was perfect for the point.

what was the point?

 

[Fireinfolding]

what was the point?

His point about how no doubts (whatsoever) ever runs through any ones mind when others do that.

I just now noticed one of the those on the ground before it, looks as though he is sort of pulling on one of the three. I so missed that at the first pass

(Like, "come on guys, get with the program")

They are like, yeah man, "no thanks, we'll pass on that" lol

 

[MoreCoffee]

Imagine that! <pun intended>

Using images to teach about not making images

 

[Fireinfolding]

When words don't work with the crowd who learns more from images

Ran into that same thing lots of times, like with the star of Bethlehem, you could argue all day (many pages of threads) and get them to change their mind by showing them an icon and then they are like... I retract

 

[Pteriax]

When we see a star burn out that is 250,000 light years away, how do we explain such in a young earth manner?

It hasn't happened. We have seen supernovas, and we observe dim stars that people ASSUME are older than bright stars, but since no one has flown out there to use radiometric dating on the dim stars and bright stars its just an assumption based on an assumption (old ages). I suggest that God created different kinds of stars, some big, some small, some bright, and some dim, and that secular scientists will never understand this. No one has seen a star "burn out" and no one has seen a star form. It's all a bunch of assumptions on assumptions on assumptions to try to explain God away.

 

[AmericanChristian91]

Um Pteeriax......the massive amounts of evidence for old earth is not intended to explain God out of the way. Sure there are many who accept old earth that are also atheists, but that doesn't make the whole old earth concept and the evidence found for it as some attack against God.