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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
When Jesus picked up bread and said it was his body, I believe him.
I told you, I'm done answering your questions.
I disagree with the premise that it must be literal or nothing at all
I'm sorry, but this is still rather cryptic. Now who is the "other guy?"
That is not what I am asking.
Is the Genesis account of Adams creation literal, yes, or no.
Whoever is with you.
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?
I still do not see the point in appealing to "you guys."
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.
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.
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.
I do not interpret all of scriptural literally. For example, Visions, signs, parables, agllegories are usually denoted as such before they are detailed.
The vast majority of Christians around the world and throughout history have taken Christ literally on this point.
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?