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.
witnessofjesus said:
progmonk said:
Ptomwebster is a Creationist, so I'm not sure why you're arguing with him...
Well there are two ways I could answer this:
This is a discussion forum to discuss Creationism and TE.
I think it never happened because the story is a parable, the whole point of the story is the metaphorical meaning. If it really happened why did Jesus invite his listeners to make up an appropriate end for the story themselves, why did he switch from a past tense recounting the story to the future tense asking what the vineyard owner will do? It is fiction, like the parable of the talking trees, like the parable of the the pet lamb Nathan told David where David demands the punishment of the guilty party and Nathan says 'You are the man' 2Sam 12. It is fiction like the parable of the Good Shepherd where Jesus claims to be a shepherd who dies for sheep.
I did in my next post. Remember how you added a second half to you post after you posted the first bit? Check the time stamp on the bottom of your post.
Indeed, like ptomwebster you are free to make as many unsupported and unsupportable claims as you like and I am also free to point out that you cannot provide a basis for you claims.
You were saying about Inquisition?
Because both TEs and Creationists confess Christ as creator already. And since I am one of the TEs here who regularly confess Christ as creator, refuting creationists isn't all I do. I can't help it though if they confuse having bad arguments refuted with being mocked.
Changing the subject again Mark? My next post addressed the question about the Nicene creed that you added to your post when you edited it. If you have any further questions about my answer address it there.
Certainly seems like it. Which isn't conducive to edifying conversations.
The most edifying thing would be to point out their behaviour and how far short it falls from the grace of Christ.
Again, that is the in the bit you added to your post when you edited it a minute before I posted my reply. I addressed it in my next post. Please don't pretend an answer to your comment about being pedantic is dodging a question you hadn't asked when I saw you post.
If you want to add any questions about the Nicene creed ask them when you are dealing with my replies about it.
Very true. It is only because Christ is both fully human and God Almighty, the creator of the universe, that his death and resurrection can save us from our sins and raise us up to resurrection life with him. Unfortunately Creationism has hijacked the term and brought the very idea of creation into disrepute.
Glad we agree so far. Perhaps you should have read further down my post to see if I addressed what the parable means, or at least gone back and edited out your impatient remark after you saw that I answered you.
Yes that is in there too. I said there was more to the parable than my short overview. But since we can agree on what the meaning of the parable is, perhaps you can show how this depends on the story of the tenants actually happening and what part of the meaning is lost of Jesus made the story up to teach that message?
What exactly have I said, then denied, then said again?
This is a discussion forum Mark.
You have a very active imagination Mark, or a very selective memory, I am not sure which.
You asked me if it sounded like the confession of a theistic evolutionist and I answered you. I have addressed your question of the incarnation further down this post, as well as in my last post.
Like you I don't agree with everything Augustine said, but you asked about metaphorical interpretations of Genesis 1 in the early church and Augustine shows there were church fathers who interpreted it that way. If you want to start a discussion of Augustine and Adam feel free to start another thread.
Instead of replying with sarcasm, why not admit your smear about the incarnation being a metaphor was wrong?
Like I said, I addressed it further down, in the very next paragraph in fact. Lets see if you actually addressed my point.
No, of course you didn't. You kept asking me over and over to address the Nicene creed before I even had a chance to answer the question you added in when you edited your post. But when I actually address it, no of course not, you make no attempt to answer me.
You are mixing up parables and what parables mean again Mark.
Have I ever said that?
I know you think I am pedantic, but when you make wild accusations like this, don't you know I am going to go through our posts and show how ridiculous these claim are?
So no actual evidence from scripture other than your assumption the description of Adam being made from dust is literal and that the NT interprets it the way you do?
So just your assertion it is literal then. But since you clearly don't even understand metaphors and parables that God loves to speak to us with, since you do not recognise when NT writer are interpreting an OT passage figuratively, your claim a passage cannot be figurative does not hold much water.
Do you want to be a bit more specific?
I have already explain the structure of the Nicene Creed, why are you asking this again when you didn't address my answer?
They are talking about the creation. The creation is historical whether the creation accounts are figurative of literal historical descriptions of it. You really need to learn to understand metaphors and parables.
