Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm not going to get into this with you.Why would it?
I've never said the bread and wine cease to be bread and wine.
And even if I were a Transubstantiationist (I'm not), Transubstantiation doesn't say anything about the change of the accidents, but only of the substance.
-CryptoLutheran
I'm not going to get into this with you.
You said it was literally Jesus.
So what started out as literally a wafer, became literally Jesus.
It sounds to me like you're backtracking now; but I don't believe it is anything more than a wafer, so it's not worth arguing about it here.
The more you look in the "scientific" study of the past, the more mistakes you will find were made and the more you will find that a lot of what is considered proven really is still up for debate by the scientists themselves.It's not about "believe".
It's about accepting the evidence is real (empirical, physical, objective, observable, valid, measurable, etc.) and the scientific conclusions drawn from an examination of that evidence.
One side of the creationsim vs science "debate" has that. The other side does not.
Of course, the point is Jesus. But Jesus referred to the flood as an actual happening. There are genealogies in genesis that are important to understanding the linage of Jesus. Nothing about points to it being nonliteral.Essentially your argument is: It's not physically possible for mere bread and wine to actually be Jesus' flesh and blood, so therefore it can't be literal, and thus conclude it must be symbolic.
You predicate your argument here on the basis of incredulity.
And yet, that same incredulity when applied to the physical impossibility of the ark and great deluge is scorned as simply "not believing the Bible".
Of course there's plenty in Genesis to indicate non-literal readings. The creation stories, if read strictly literally, flat out contradict each other, for example.
In the first creation story God causes plants to sprout up on dry land on the third day, animals are created on days five and six, with man being created last on the sixth day. In the second creation story, God forms man from the dust of the earth, and then creates plants, places man in a garden, and then creates animals.
The first story's chronology: Man > Plants > Animals
The second story's chronology: Plants > Animals > Man
In order to force the two stories to not conflict requires drastically changing the plain reading of the text.
Now, if I were a biblicist who believed in taking those stories in Genesis literally, that would be a problem for me. But I'm not, and so those details aren't problematic. Because the point of the creation stories aren't to give us a literal "play-by-play", but rather to provide meaningful context for the story of God's redemption of the world. The first creation story presents us with God as the Creator who has ordained everything to be and to dwell in its ordered spaces. Creation isn't, as it is in many of the mythologies of the surrounding nations to Israel, the result of cosmic chaos; but is the product of Divine Order. A division between light and dark, between sky and sea, between water and dry land, giving room for sun, moon, and stars to rule day and night, birds and fish to rule sky and sea, and beasts to rule dry land--with man as the priestly steward over the earth bearing the Divine Image. The second creation story presenting us with the story of man's relationships with God and the rest of creation, relationships which become fundamentally and forever broken by the introduction of death, sin, and suffering, the realities of this present world which we find ourselves--in which rather than simply enjoying God's good world we must toil at the soil, hunt to kill for food and clothing, in which violence, war, and every other evil is present in our midst.
And so when I get to the story of Noah and the ark, it's really not that difficult to understand that the point of the story isn't "God got really mad and decided to kill everyone and everything on the planet." But rather the point of the story presents to us an important lesson to learn: Salvation does not come through destruction. The flood did not save the world. The world cannot be healed by erasing everything and just starting over. The flood came, the waters receded, and sin, death, and suffering didn't go away. As quickly as Noah gets off the boat, builds an altar to thank God, he gets drunk off his rear end, strips naked, gets caught naked by one of his sons, and then places a curse on his own grandson. And almost as soon as the whole story of Noah ends, we're already reading about men gathering together to build a tower to ascend to heaven--our hubris has not subsided. We were just as bad after the flood as we were before. Nothing got fixed.
That sets us up with something really important, the way God actually will redeem and heal the world.
"Terah took Abram his son and Lot the son of Haran, his grandson, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, his son Abram's wife, and they went forth together from Ur of the Chaldeans to go into the land of Canaan, but when they came to Haran, they settled there. 32 The days of Terah were 205 years, and Terah died in Haran. Now the Lord said to Abram, 'Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.'" - Genesis 11:31-2 - 12:1-3
"Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, 'And to offsprings,' referring to many, but referring to one, 'And to your offspring,' who is Christ." - Galatians 3:16
In Christianity the point of the Bible is Jesus.
-CryptoLutheran
Your constant claim that I don't understand evolution is hogwash.Facts are not insults I have offered to go over the basics with you so that you would not repeat errors. You did not accept that offer. You have no excuse for your lack of education in this matter. You are being insulted by reality.
Well, if you truly accepted the vast amount of evidence that exists, understood how evolution happens, and understood how the Theory of Evolution (along with numerous theories from other scientific disciplines) explains it all, then you wouldn't be a creationist.Your constant claim that I don't understand evolution is hogwash.
You are bearing false witness again.Go ahead and take it on pure faith.
Thanks for the compliment.
Why should they be holes?Then they should be, because they most certainly are not in any museum anywhere.
You probably need to go to the mods to change your name. They can probably do so if you want it done.And I say you're wrong.I know.Right -- and I'm Genghis Khan.
I'm surprised academians aren't all over this.
In fact, one seems to be on your side.
And that says it all.
Your constant claim that I don't understand evolution is hogwash.
Of course, the point is Jesus. But Jesus referred to the flood as an actual happening.
There are genealogies in genesis that are important to understanding the linage of Jesus. Nothing about points to it being nonliteral.
My argument about the body of Christ isn't based on incredulity. God can do whatever he wants. But he doesn't convert the wine to literal blood as I drink it. Sure, he could if he wanted to. But Jesus doesn't give the disciples real blood so why would we think we are drinking actual human blood?, which is forbidden in the bible, BTW! I didn't say he doesn't literally indwell the elements in some fashion. He says it's the fruit of the vine, which you have never addressed. He says the cup is a covenant when it's still a cup, which you have never addressed. Obviously, he is talking of spiritual and not physical things.
Yup -- busted by science.It appears that they made a huge error.
No, the "scientists" this time made a mistake. I can see that you missed it.Yup -- busted by science.
That's one of the reasons I gave for God giving us scientists: to keep religion in check.
Please don't act innocent. I think you know what I mean by missing links.Why should they be holes?
If they aren't missing, then produce them.Subduction Zone said:You have not explained why so called missing links are holes in the theory.
Are you saying SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE, are you?You probably need to go to the mods to change your name. They can probably do so if you want it done.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?