Something I need to get off my chest about the whole creation/evolution thing.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Do you believe that Jesus Christ literally was born, died, and resurrected?

Yes or no?

If you agree that the account of Christ is literal, then do you agree that Jesus Christ is also a descendent of Adam?


Yes or no?

Luk 3:38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.



If you believe Adam was a literal person, in which the line of David is literally from, on what Grounds can you refute the creation account of Adam by God as anything other than literal?

I will not answer any more of your questions until you explain why you have to be a literal creationist but not a believer in the real presence in communion. You're not an interrogator. You're not above anyone on this board. In terms of education (it's called botany, BTW, not "plant biology"), you're obviously far below. I assume you don't have a graduate degree in religion, do you?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Interesting..

You get get caught in your own nonsense and you attack my character.




I cannot answer you according to your folly.


Id rather pray for you.

Sigh. It was an example. And you already told me I have air in my head!

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Interesting..

You get get caught in your own nonsense and you attack my character.




I cannot answer you according to your folly.


Id rather pray for you.

Moreover, you haven't caught me in any nonsense. You're the one who holds that a poem has to be literal but clear teaching in 1 Corinthians 11 about communion is figurative.

 

[Time4Truth]

You seem to be completely unaware that a person can hold that Jesus of Nazareth was literally born, died, and resurrected while also holding that the fall account was figurative, even though you hold that Jesus of Nazareth was literally born, died, and resurrected while also holding that the words "this is my body" and "this is my blood" are figurative.

Jesus did not drink his own blood and did not eat his own flesh.

He ate bread and drank wine and told us what it meant, and to repeat that in remembrance of him.


1Co 11:24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."1Co 11:25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."


You are presenting a fallacious argument for a literal interpretation of "blood" and "bread".

 

[Tzaousios]

You seem to be completely unaware that a person can hold that Jesus of Nazareth was literally born, died, and resurrected while also holding that the fall account was figurative, even though you hold that Jesus of Nazareth was literally born, died, and resurrected while also holding that the words "this is my body" and "this is my blood" are figurative.

Very good point!

 

[Time4Truth]

Moreover, you haven't caught me in any nonsense. You're the one who holds that a poem has to be literal but clear teaching in 1 Corinthians 11 about communion is figurative.

Demonstrate objectively for the class why you, a human, want Christians to take this account as anything other than literal.

Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

If this verse is not literal, then Adam cannot be the original human which Christ came through genealogically.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Jesus did not drink his own blood and did not eat his own flesh.

He ate bread and drank wine and told us what it meant, and to repeat that in remembrance of him.

These are assertions, not arguments.

1Co 11:24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."1Co 11:25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."


You are presenting a fallacious argument for a literal interpretation of "blood" and "bread".

When Jesus picked up bread and said it was his body, I believe him. When Jesus picked up a cup and said the wine inside was his blood, I believe him. When the entire early church, beginning from Pentecost but also indicated from Paul and continuing forward until 1520, treated communion in a way that indicated they believed Christ was visiting them physically through the bread and wine, I think they knew what they were doing.

But you haven't actually presented an argument for your view, anyway.

And in any case, if you get to make any sort of argument for a figurative interpretation (in a letter containing clear teaching!), I don't see why I can't make one for Genesis (which is so obviously a poem!).

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Demonstrate objectively for the class why you, a human, want Christians to take this account as anything other than literal.

Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

If this verse is not literal, then Adam cannot be the original human which Christ came through genealogically.

I told you, I'm done answering your questions. This isn't how polite discussion works. You are not my interrogator.

Why don't you actually make a case as to why it matters, and then we can discuss that?

 

[Time4Truth]

When Jesus picked up bread and said it was his body, I believe him.

Interesting, you believe Christ was actually drinking blood.

Then on what grounds, when God said he created Adam from the dust of the earth, and breathed life into his nostrils, do you not believe him?




Why did Paul warn against consuming blood if we are literally drinking "blood" as you believe?

Act_15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

 

[Time4Truth]

I told you, I'm done answering your questions.

Of course you are, you really don't have anything left.

As it is written.

2Co_10:5 We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ

Amen

 

[Tzaousios]

Time4Truth, please see my reply to you in post #259. Thanks.

 

[Time4Truth]

I disagree with the premise that it must be literal or nothing at all

That is not what I am asking.

Is the Genesis account of Adams creation literal, yes, or no.

Im not going to say that because you believe the account of Adam to be literal you presuppose anything else in scripture is automatically literal.


I just want to know if you believe the creation of Adam by God is literal or not.

I'm sorry, but this is still rather cryptic. Now who is the "other guy?"

Whoever is with you.

 

[Tzaousios]

That is not what I am asking.

Is the Genesis account of Adams creation literal, yes, or no.

You edited out my main point again. That is a disingenuous practice. Do you mean to tell me that you have not predetermined that the literalist interpretation is the only valid one and all others are bad?

Whoever is with you.

I still do not see the point in appealing to "you guys."

 

[Time4Truth]

You edited out my main point again. That is a disingenuous practice. Do you mean to tell me that you have not predetermined that the literalist interpretation is the only valid one and all others are bad?

Predetermined? No.

I do not interpret all of scriptural literally. For example, Visions, signs, parables, agllegories are usually denoted as such before they are detailed.


Im not sure why you cant answer this question.

Was the creation of Adam, by God himself, a literal account or not?

Its a yes or no, you can evade all you want.

I still do not see the point in appealing to "you guys."

Perhaps I was in error?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Of course you are, you really don't have anything left.

As it is written.

2Co_10:5 We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ

Amen

Psh. I haven't even explained the full framework hypothesis of Genesis 1 or the nature of historical writing in antiquity. But you're so full of this notion of yourself as an authority and a prophet that you won't even have a polite discussion.

 

[Time4Truth]

Psh. I haven't even explained the full framework hypothesis of Genesis 1 or the nature of historical writing in antiquity. But you're so full of this notion of yourself as an authority and a prophet that you won't even have a polite discussion.

By all means, tell me with whatever worldly interpretation you can come up with why the creation account of Adam by God is not literal.


Enlighten me.


You are the one who believes humans evolved, so tell me why Adams creation by God is not literal.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Interesting, you believe Christ was actually drinking blood.[/qoute]

The vast majority of Christians around the world and throughout history have taken Christ literally on this point.

Then on what grounds, when God said he created Adam from the dust of the earth, and breathed life into his nostrils, do you not believe him?

Tons, but I'm not the one insisting on a consistent literalism.

Why did Paul warn against consuming blood if we are literally drinking "blood" as you believe?

Act_15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Because animal blood is impure because it partakes of the fall. Christ's blood does not, and gives us the very life of God.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

By all means, tell me with whatever worldly interpretation you can come up with why the creation account of Adam by God is not literal.


Enlighten me.


You are the one who believes humans evolved, so tell me why Adams creation by God is not literal.

"worldly interpretation" C'mon, man.

You just assume I don't actually care about the text and am not trying to be faithful to the text. As long as you assume that I'm just trying to argue Genesis 1 away, we're never going to have a reasonable discussion.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I do not interpret all of scriptural literally. For example, Visions, signs, parables, agllegories are usually denoted as such before they are detailed.

Nonsense. The majority of the parables are not indicated as such.

 

[Time4Truth]

The vast majority of Christians around the world and throughout history have taken Christ literally on this point.

Wait, you literally think that when you have communion that you are drinking Jesus Christs blood, and eating his flesh, synonymous with the actual blood and flesh of Christ before he ascended??


You are kidding right?


When you were baptized, did the water literally wash your sins away too??