- Aug 17, 2005
- 13,749
- 4,448
- 71
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Of course. And they're the same people. It's a game we all play to some extent.
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.
Of course. And they're the same people. It's a game we all play to some extent.Are there those who are allegorists, so long as it meets their purposes?
Or rather "clarifying" Scripture so that it agrees with your doctrinal presuppositions.
It's a game we all play to some extent.
1 Cor 11 fits perfectly.Including the ones you so pointedly ignore in 1 Cor 11 because they don't jibe with your doctrine!
Only if you choose to skim over all the inconvenient details in the text that dictate the correct view and may show your view to be in error.Which makes my point that it all depends on whose ox is being gored. Everyone is a literalist when it serves their purposes, and everything is a metaphor when a literal meaning runs counter to your own beliefs.
If you ignore enough details... it is . I choose not to do that.I.E posturing about literalism is just that - posturing.
Your a priori bias does not change the text - Christ is the one who is NOT bread in John 6, and is NOT bread falling out of the sky in John 6.If you don't believe in the Real Presence? No.
And its always for the same reason.. I pay attention to the details in the text.You're telling me why you take some things literally
No they don't -- your doctrines determine your eisegesis. Context determines exegesis.Our doctrines determine our exegesis
We would be a lot happier with 'the Bible details" in Genesis 1-9 and John 6 than you appear to be at the moment.If we were both Baptists or some such, we'd almost certainly agree on what is literal and what isn't
Because you were comfortable ignoring Bible details from the start?(FWIW, I never believed that Genesis 1 was literal, though, although most of my fellow Charismatics did.)
funny false accusations is not a form of Bible study or "proof" of any doctrine. I guess we all know that.And some feel the need to duct-tape unrelated Scriptures together with knight-jump exegesis
I suggest you do a mental exercise and explore that scenario a bit.If you want to believe that Creation took 6 days down to the nanosecond it suits me fine, because in the end I don't think it matters. If I'm wrong on that then I'm sure I'll be squared away after I leave here.
The details IN the text demand that we notice them even when you find them inconvenient.And so say all SDAs
You write "details" in almost every post you make. This seems to be claiming to see what most others miss. And it's typical of doctrine based on bits and pieces. What's usually called connecting the dots. Rather than seeing what the overall pessage as a whole says. If the passage is taken as a whole, then there's all those "details" bits and pieces used to connect the dots that are missed.BobRyan said:
Which makes many people happy when they think of the virgin birth, the miracles of Christ, His bodily resurrection and ascension to heaven.
But the moment this act of taking the Bible literally is used consistently across the board - and it gets to the first 9 chapters of Genesis -- well then, that's another thing altogether for 'some'.
Only if you choose to skim over all the inconvenient details in the text that dictate the correct view and may show your view to be in error.
Your post entirely ignores those "details" on that topic I mention above - and that you also bring up in your OP.
Why keep doing that? as if we won't notice?
If you ignore enough details... it is . I choose not to do that.
Your a priori bias does not change the text - Christ is the one who is NOT bread in John 6, and is NOT bread falling out of the sky in John 6.
This is not just "my interpretation of John 6" -- every Bible scholar on the planet admits to it.
Not nearly as unknowable and mysterious as you seem to want to have it.
Were we simply "not supposed to notice"??
And its always for the same reason.. I pay attention to the details in the text.
No they don't -- your doctrines determine your eisegesis. Context determines exegesis.
You keep conflating the two.
We would be a lot happier with 'the Bible details" in Genesis 1-9 and John 6 than you appear to be at the moment.
Because you were comfortable ignoring Bible details from the start?
funny false accusations is not a form of Bible study or "proof" of any doctrine. I guess we all know that.
I suggest you do a mental exercise and explore that scenario a bit.
What IF the Ten Commandments are right in the law that dictates a literal 7 day week in Ex 20:11
What if God is correct in Gen 1-2 about that literal 7 day week.
What are the implications of that scenario in your POV? Do ever take the time to objectively evaluate the alternative or are you not allowing yourself to stop and think about it for a minute?
I am curious. What do you suggest people do? The answer should be the same as "what do you do?"Of course. And they're the same people. It's a game we all play to some extent.
So what criteria d we use to determine this?
“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.”
In John 6:50-53 the Koine Greek word used for "eat" are forms of "phago." The Jews find the words of Jesus hard to believe, in John 6:54 forms of the word "trogein" or "trogo" begin to be used for "eat." "Trogein" means to chew, or gnaw, or masticate--when challenged Jesus, instead of telling them it is symbolic, does the opposite and makes it clear that He is speaking literally about eating His flesh. There were a number of disciples who just could not believe Jesus and such a new concept for them, it was shocking and new enough that many disciples of Jesus left him. The consequences spelled out in the last sentence of the following passage are hardly for something symbolic:IN John 6 Jesus explains those figures of speech as being a reference to accepting His WORDS of LIFE and believing His teaching. So all the while using the same figures of speech in John 6 - neither the faithless nor the faithful disciples attempt to bite Christ nor do they see him as literal bread falling out of the sky. The faithful ones see that He is using a figure of speech- symbolism of the same form seen in Deut 8 with Manna
I call it intellectual dishonesty. "Oh, never mind what here's what says, here's what it needs to mean to keep my favorite doctrine intact.We call that a "win-win situation."
So just change the questions to suit your answers. Right.When our test answers agree with the test questions, we pass the test, don't we?
The "rules" being set by your doctrinal position.As long as we follow the rules, eh?
Really? Funny, those words don't appear in my Bible. (Saying "my Bible" like that make me feel so very Baptist), and I very much doubt that it does in your's, either. But you feel free to act as though it says that because that's what your doctrine says it really means.1 Cor 11 fits perfectly.
1. IT states that the Lord's supper is not a sacrifice
Gimme a citation on that as well unless you're simply trying to support my original contention.- the very thing that Protestants claim
2. It states that it is proclaiming "The Lord's DEATH" until He comes (meaning it should probably be on Friday or Saturday not Sunday if one were to be rather strict about it)
Really? Hmmm?
Even when they're not there, apparently.The details IN the text demand that we notice them even when you find them inconvenient.
Which is why most Christians are in complete agreement the Eucharist is simply Memorial Snack.The easy and obvious ability to read the text and see details so obvious that all sides admit to them - is a good starting point.
Really? When did I say any such thing? I suspect you're doing a little violence to the truth there, mate.Yet you claim this is too difficult for you
"My group", in this case, representing the vast majority of Christians in the world. The "Memorial Snack" is very much a minority view. That isn't why I happen to believe it, though. I belivee it because that's what our Lord said, and I take it literally, because I don't see the "but He can't have really meant that!" position at all persuasive.since you claim you are so incredibly biased as dictated by the dogma of your group.
I'd go so far as to say nobody at all thinks He was bread. But wait, you're probably leading up to some dramatic revelation....1. All scholars agree that nobody in John 6 thinks Christ "is bread" he is standing there talking to them
Wow, that's amazing! I mean, if He hadn't clarified what He really meant for those folks they'd have abandoned Him in droves. Good job that didn't happen, innit?- no matter what he says to the contrary in his use of figures of speech and symbols.
2. All scholars agree that nobody in John 6 sees bread falling down out of the sky -- - no matter what he says to the contrary in his use of figures of speech and symbols.
3. All scholars agree that nobody in John 6 bites Christ - not the faithful disciples nor the faithless ones -- - no matter what he says to the contrary in his use of figures of speech and symbols.
... the list goes on.
Which is why almost all Christians accept the Zwinglian position as true, right? I mean, it' just intuitively obvious!The easy and obvious details themselves direct the reader to conclude against what you admit is your a priori bias to the contrary.
I call it intellectual dishonesty.
The "rules" being set by your doctrinal position.
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?