Paul, instructions and myth.

[theFijian]

I was kinda hoping you would use the parable example.
from 2nd sam.....
There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor.

2 The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds; 3 but the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own morsel, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter.

4 And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him, but took the poor man's lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him.

You do understand that parables are based upon history, possible events, real places? Yes?

It's possible for two men to be in a city.
It's possible for one to be rich and the other poor.
It's possible for the rich man to have flocks and herds.
It's possible for a poor man to have just one ewe lamb.
It's possible for the poor man to raise it and nourish it.
It's possible the poor man had children.
It's possible he rased it like his own daughter.
It's possible for travelers to exist......You should be getting the point.

Parables are based upon actual events or events tat could actually happen.

Genesis presents a Garden, a man and a women, descriptions of rivers, tree's, animals, snake, fig leaves, animal skin...all of which are presented as possible as well as historical.

There is no reason to even think Genesis isn't literal historical history. As i said earlier, why would Paul tell women to keep silent...based upon a parable? It makes no sense.

Yesterday R.C. Sproul spoke on this....check it out. I trust you like R.C. Sproul?

Possible events, not actual events. A shame for you.

Clearly, the example from 2 Sam 12 is not an actual event

 

[-57]

This doesn't actually produce a definition of a parable that supports your position. To modern categories of historicity, there is nearly an infinite amount of distance between that which "could happen" and that which is demonstrably shown to have happened (in way of demonstration, I merely mean that it fulfills the criteria of the particular historical methodology...there's absolutely no way to objectively demonstrate that any given event occurred, as any interpretation of the event will necessarily be mediated via the subjectivity of mind).



But according to your own definition above, perhaps we are merely talking about things that *could* happen..."possible events", to use your words. In an infinite number of universes, pretty much any phenomenon is *possible", so if this is your definition of "real history", you should perhaps work on your communication skills a bit. There are not many that would acknowledge allegiance to such a view of "history".



On the same lines of reasoning, there is also absolutely no reason to think that Genesis *is* literal history. You assume that it must be because your suppositions about the "inspiration" of Scripture REQUIRE that the Scriptures be viably demonstrated on the basis of modern conceptions of historicity. But if we leave aside your unwarranted assumptions, there is no "reason" to presume that one must interpret Genesis as "literal history" ("literal history", of course, being that which is understood as fulfilling the criteria of a particular philosophical and methodological understanding of "history"--remember, there is no universal, objective notion of "history"!!!!).



Did it not make sense for Jesus to do precisely this? Storytelling is--for better or worse--an intrinsic part of human language, even to the present philosophical milieu. That you would require that Jesus' parables be "historical" (in the modernist sense of historicity) is not only breath-taking, but very revelatory of the severe methodological flaws that are endemic to your hermeneutics.

Sounds like your telling me...despite the fact Genesis contains real things, places, people....It couldn't happen?
Despite the fact Paul used it to establish a teaching...it couldn't happen?
Despite the biblical fact the authors inspired by God presented it as liter...it couldn't happen?

....basedupon what? Evolutionism?

Do me a favor, stop polluting the bible.

 

[-57]

Possible events, not actual events. A shame for you.

Clearly, the example from 2 Sam 12 is not an actual event

Oh but you forget...Genesis is resented as actual events. Did you listen to Calvinist R.C. Sproul on the subject? I posted you the link.

I have to concluse you're really not the calvinist you claim to be. Oh, my....original sin...where did it come from? care to explain using your apostate views? Are we wittnessing one of the elect being deceived?

 

[theFijian]

Oh but you forget...Genesis is resented as actual events. Did you listen to Calvinist R.C. Sproul on the subject? I posted you the link.

I have to concluse you're really not the calvinist you claim to be. Oh, my....original sin...where did it come from? care to explain using your apostate views? Are we wittnessing one of the elect being deceived?

Original sin comes from the fall of man, would have thought that was quite obvious

 

[alexandriaisburning]

Sounds like your telling me...despite the fact Genesis contains real things, places, people....It couldn't happen?
Despite the fact Paul used it to establish a teaching...it couldn't happen?
Despite the biblical fact the authors inspired by God presented it as liter...it couldn't happen?

....basedupon what? Evolutionism?

Do me a favor, stop polluting the bible.

I never said one way or the other regarding the "possibility" of the narrative events of Genesis being "historical". My entire point in this now long conversation has been providing a defense of a reading other than that one which you are advocating, and showing how such an alternative interpretation does not do the "damage" to the Scriptures that you might suppose.

Personally, whether or not the stories in Genesis can be validated as "history" (in the modernist sense of the word) doesn't really matter to me. I don't subject the value and inspiration of the Scriptures to the judgements of external philosophies as you seem to do.

 

[-57]

Original sin comes from the fall of man, would have thought that was quite obvious

Evolutionism would say....some evolving people didn't fall.
The bible tells us we all sin because Adam sinned.

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.

My bible say one man, whatdoes your bible say?

 

[alexandriaisburning]

Evolutionism would say....some evolving people didn't fall.
The bible tells us we all sin because Adam sinned.

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.

My bible say one man, whatdoes your bible say?

Actually, the verse you quoted doesn't say that "we all sin because Adam sinned". The passage in particular says that "death" spreads to all because "all sinned"--we all share in the consequences of the Adamic sin, not because of our biology, but because of our sinfulness. This is why Christ is sinless, not because he is biologically immune to the heritable nature of sin (which is a fallacy), but because he is in all ways obedient to the will of the Father.

The context of the passage is ultimately saying that death has its entree to the human experience through the Adamic archetype of humanity, so too death is overcome through a similar recapitulation of this archetype in Christ.

 

[theFijian]

Evolutionism would say....some evolving people didn't fall.

No it doesn't. Next?

 

[-57]

No it doesn't. Next?

The Calvinist says we are born dead in our sins and trespasses...People are already condemned.
Tell me, in the supposed evolutionary history of mankind.....when did that happen? How did it happen?

 

[theFijian]

The Calvinist says we are born dead in our sins and trespasses...People are already condemned.
Tell me, in the supposed evolutionary history of mankind.....when did that happen? How did it happen?

Who knows exactly when, probably a couple hundred thousand years ago. How did it happen? Not sure, one of the few occasions I'm quite comfortable with 'Goddidit'

 

[-57]

Who knows exactly when, probably a couple hundred thousand years ago. How did it happen? Not sure, one of the few occasions I'm quite comfortable with 'Goddidit'

Yes, I know you don't know. If you actually want to know...read Genesis 3. You are a bible believer? Yes?