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.
It is not even necessary to believe it is His Father's account.Is it possible to believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ IF you don't believe His Father's account of the Creation?
But I do believe the Genesis creation accounts. I believe they are allegories.
Are you saying that one must believe in the Genesis creation accounts as literal history in order to be saved?
It is not even necessary to believe it is His Father's account.
Not if it was allegory to start with.
What does the historicity of the creation stories in Genesis (which is what we were talking about) have to do with the truth of the Resurrection? In any case, I cannot answer your question because my true opinion of Sola Scriptura would not stand the scrutiny of the forum moderators.Then tell us WHERE to get the Faith to believe that Jesus rose from the dead the third day since it is NOT of yourselves, lest any man boast.
Changing God's Holy Word into allegory is the same as making up your own religion, your own belief. I seek the AGREEMENT of Scripture, Science and History and EVERY other discovered Truth of mankind. Faith plus Fact equals God's Truth IF you have the correct interpretation. Only the Christians of the "last days" can understand. Dan 12:4
What does the historicity of the creation stories in Genesis (which is what we were talking about) have to do with the truth of the Resurrection? In any case, I cannot answer your question because my true opinion of Sola Scriptura would not stand the scrutiny of the forum moderators.
So I and many other Christians--probably the majority of Christians--are "making up" our own religion simply because we do not believe Genesis is literal history.
What of the people on this thread who have said that the bread of Holy Communion is not the body of Christ? Are they also making up their own religion?
But believing in the God of Creation is different than believing in a literal reading of Genesis.Because you MUST believe that God IS and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him, in order to receive the saving Gift of Faith.
Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him: for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.
One MUST believe in the God of Creation and that He gives them the gift of Faith to believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, in order to be drawn to Jesus. We are His workmanship and one should give the Father credit for His Love in creating mankind in Christ Spiritually.
Jhn 6:44 No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Today is the last Day. Today is the 6th Creative Day. God Bless you
Baptism and Holy Communion are both Sacraments.A religion is a belief. Genesis one is the complete history of God's 6 Day/Age Creation of the perfect 3rd Heaven. It AGREES in every way with EVERY other Truth which has been discovered by mankind. Faith plus Fact equals God's Truth which is the Truth in every way.
Eating bread, being circumcised, or baptized, is a work of man, which is NOT the power of God unto Salvation.
Eph 2:8 For by grace (unmerited reward) are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
No, A and B are both interpretations of the same story. A is not "the Bible," it is your interpretation of the Bible.
So I and many other Christians--probably the majority of Christians--are "making up" our own religion simply because we do not believe Genesis is literal history.
What of the people on this thread who have said that the bread of Holy Communion is not the body of Christ? Are they also making up their own religion?
I don't think you have the problem stated correctly. There is no question that Gen 1 & 2 are allegorical. Figurative interpretations of Genesis are almost as old as the book itself and have been entertained by many Christian theologians over the centuries. That is where the greatest value of the stories lies.There is SCRIPTURAL evidence that could lead one to consider that the body and blood of communion may not be literal. It may be literal also. God certainly has the power to such a miracle. But there is scriptural statements that could lead us to consider it as not actual. However there are NO scriptures that could lead us to consider that Genesis is allegory. In fact there are many scriptures that tell us its not allegory. So, it would be foolish of me to say, I have zero scriptures that point to Genesis as allegory and many that state it's historical, but I believe it's allegory anyway without any scriptural evidence.
Meanwhile on the idea of the blood and body of Christ I have scriptures that would lead me to believe that cannibalism is not good therefore God wouldn't ask me to be a cannibal. However Jesus did say this is my body so somehow God uses a miracle to change the bread into actual flesh after it goes down therefore it's not really cannibalism. So I believe it is his real flesh and blood. There is an scriptural argument for both. Whereas there is NO scriptural argument for Genesis being allegory.
Because dust is presented as part of an allegory.Let me get this straight...the bible say Man was formed from the dust....B says man was formed from the apes.
How do you go from dust to ape? Especially when apes is not in the bible....it's not my interpration of the bible but rather exactly what the bible says.
Speedwell is, as usual, correct. Many over the years have considered Genesis to be allegory.There is SCRIPTURAL evidence that could lead one to consider that the body and blood of communion may not be literal. It may be literal also. God certainly has the power to such a miracle. But there is scriptural statements that could lead us to consider it as not actual. However there are NO scriptures that could lead us to consider that Genesis is allegory. In fact there are many scriptures that tell us its not allegory. So, it would be foolish of me to say, I have zero scriptures that point to Genesis as allegory and many that state it's historical, but I believe it's allegory anyway without any scriptural evidence.
Meanwhile on the idea of the blood and body of Christ I have scriptures that would lead me to believe that cannibalism is not good therefore God wouldn't ask me to be a cannibal. However Jesus did say this is my body so somehow God uses a miracle to change the bread into actual flesh after it goes down therefore it's not really cannibalism. So I believe it is his real flesh and blood. There is an scriptural argument for both. Whereas there is NO scriptural argument for Genesis being allegory.
But believing in the God of Creation is different than believing in a literal reading of Genesis.
Let me get this straight...the bible say Man was formed from the dust....
And of course you claim to have the proper interpretation, and those who disagree with you do not.Not if you have the proper interpretation of Genesis. You will know when you have the correct interpretation WHEN every other discovered Truth of Science and History AGREES in every way with God's story of the creation in Genesis one. It's the way God has chosen to reveal His Truth to the people of the last days of this Earth.
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?