- Mar 5, 2004
- 17,332
- 6,439
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
But the post to which I was replying said that they were of man, not of God.
Upvote
0
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.
But the post to which I was replying said that they were of man, not of God.Amen, of some denominations. For Baptists they are an outward expression of an inward happening. The thief on the cross next to Jesus didn't have time to be baptized or to take communion BUT he will be with us in Heaven. Amen? Luk 23:43
Because dust is presented as part of an allegory.
I said that. It is part of an allegory. You are, of course, entitled to your own views.Perhaps you can explain what the dust is.
I said that. It is part of an allegory. You are, of course, entitled to your own views.
Then what does the dust allegorically represent?
Then what does the dust allegorically represent?
And of course you claim to have the proper interpretation, and those who disagree with you do not.
And, of course, as I have said multiple times, you are entitled to your interpretation.
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.
No, the pertinent questions are 1. Is Genesis also (not instead of) 100% literal history and 2. Is it necessary to salvation to believe it is?
Most believers did not take it as allegory and in fact the earliest of the church fathers did not take it as allegory. You cannot find anyone earlier in the church than the apostles and it is obvious they believed it to be history. You also cannot find anyone with more authority in the church than Jesus and he did not make an allegorize claim and in fact what he said tells you he did not consider it so. He considered it history and the apostles were the ultimate authority after Christ and they did to. Find me someone who had as much authority as Christ and the apostles who believed it to be allegory and write scripture and I may rethink this.Speedwell is, as usual, correct. Many over the years have considered Genesis to be allegory.
Wouldn't you agree that there is a major difference between Biblical admonishments regarding parents eating that own children and Jesus telling us "this is my body?"
My point is that you are picking and choosing what to believe. You are saying that we all must believe two differing stories written by unknown authors probably at different times, one of which involves a talking snake, as literal history while ignoring the plain meaning of the words of our Lord and savior. Unlike you, I am not trying to tell anyone what to believe. As I have said over and over, you are free to your own interpretation of scripture.
Are you really claiming that none of the Fathers found figurative meaning in those stories?Most believers did not take it as allegory and in fact the earliest of the church fathers did not take it as allegory.
In fact, scripture does not tell us very much at all about the genre of those stories. And, of course, you will consider no extra-biblical information on the point whatsoever.Is it 100% history? Yes it is. There is no scriptural evidence to say otherwise.
Then what do you think accounts for the belligerence and hostility of some of your coreligionists on the point? Are they jealous?Is it necessary to believe that for salvation. No.
So much of the meaning of the Bible is missed if it is all reduced down to simple plot.
It is a children's bible that focuses all the energy on plot. Well, really, actually it is less than that, if your reading of your bible does not recognize that parable is as true as history. Even a child would be able to understand how the Biblical lessons of the ant and the related Aesop tale of the ant and the grasshopper is really more about people than about the study of insects.
The greatest truths of Jesus's teaching were often based in parable, and even simile. ("No Pharisee, you do not have to reenter your mommy and travel down her birth canal in order to be born again").
It is quite amazing really to think that any serious reader of the Bible would think that something would have to be literally true in order to be taken seriously enough to base rules of conduct or theology upon it.
Indeed. Those who reduce the bible down to plot instead of understanding the profundity of the work is never an either/or situation between history and allegory make the Holy Spirit into an author of children's fiction.Since the entire Bible was authored by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, it is the Truth in every way. Those who change His Holy Word into fables are admitting that they cannot understand His Truth.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Indeed. Those who reduce the bible down to plot instead of understanding the profundity of the work is never an either/or situation between history and allegory make the Holy Spirit into an author of children's fiction.
Yes. Of course.Can you tell us how to get to Heaven?
Only by rejecting the idea that the parables of Jesus are worthy of being the basis for faith and rules to guide us does the the premise of this thread become acceptable.In a letter to Timothy from Paul, Paul instructed the women on how to act in church. 1st Tim 2:11-12 is where that can be found.
In verse 13-14 Paul shows us his reason for his rule...and it's based upon the creation of man and women and the fall as presented in Genesis.
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
It's that simple.
Why would Paul develop a rule based upon a parable?
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?