Theistic Evolution makes Judgment and Sin feel distant and less real

[Jipsah]

No it doesn't.

1 Corinthians 11:23-29 King James Version (KJV)
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

The Word of God

 

[Jipsah]

What was in the cup?

Welchade?

Let me ask you this...if someone ate the bread...then spit it up...would it be "flesh" or bread?

This is simply you 'splaining why you don't believe our Lord meant what He said. So much for literalism.

 

[-57]

1 Corinthians 11:23-29 King James Version (KJV)
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

The Word of God

Beep, beep, back the truck up.....27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread,.....what is it? bread or body?

What was in the cup?

 

[Jipsah]

How long did it take for the water to turn to wine?

I'll bite, how long?

Is it harder to create a planet inside of one day?

No, because it's magic, right? God didn't have to take thought for His design of the universe, it Just Happened!

Right.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Some inferences are based upon logical conclusions.

Others...not so much.

The inference of evolutionism as Gods means of creating mankind...isn't biblically based. Rather it is based upon controversial ever changing science. So, it appears to me it's okay for you to make inferences and hold some assumptions from the Bible even though the biblical writers didn't qualify some certain details.

But what actually happens is the details are swapped out...removed from the bible...such as the details of forming man from the dust then women from his rib. Evolution is substituted.

I can understand how it might seem like details are being swapped, but this would then imply that the Bible teaches a particular view on its inspiration (which it may not), and then some folks (like yourself) apparently assume out of t his that what we have in Genesis is the same kind of writing, the same nature of literature, as we find in Exodus and onward. Personally, I don't think it is.

But, between the two of us as mutual Christians, I don't mind if you think Adam and Eve were literal figures of history.

 

[-57]

Welchade?

This is simply you 'splaining why you don't believe our Lord meant what He said. So much for literalism.

The bread only represented Jesus' body.

 

[Jipsah]

There are a lot of things the bible is silent on...and all we can do is look at other scripture...connect the dots...and speculate or make assumptions.

Then run in your own doctrinal presuppositions and declare that that's what the Scripture really means.

 

[-57]

I'll bite, how long?

Not long.

No, because it's magic, right? God didn't have to take thought for His design of the universe, it Just Happened!

Right.

When God was designing the universe..time had not began.

 

[-57]

Then run in your own doctrinal presuppositions and declare that that's what the Scripture really means.

At the last supper...what was in the cup? Do you know?

 

[The Barbarian]

Let me ask you this...if someone ate the bread...then spit it up...would it be "flesh" or bread?

The Nazis actually tried that experiment. They raided a church, right after consecration of the host. And lab analysis showed only bread and wine. Triumphantly, they announced Christianity to be a fraud.

But that's not what transubstantiation is.

“Transubstantiation” is an English term based on the Latin words for the process of change in substance, as “transportation” is for the process of changing location. In Catholic theology, “transubstantiation” indicates the change that the elements of communion undergo when they change from bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. This change is utterly unique because this substantial change occurs without any accidental change. With the exception of some remarkable Eucharistic miracles, transubstantiation does not result in a change that is empirically detectable or scientifically provable. The doctrine is thus not believed because of any perceived change, but it is believed to be the best explanation for biblical statements that identify the communion meal with Jesus’ body and blood (John 6:53-58; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Cor. 11:26-27), as well as the testimony of the historic church.


Those complaining that the bread and wine do not appear to be flesh and blood, then, are not only expressing common sense, but they affirm the teaching of the Church. A skeptic who tries to disprove transubstantiation scientifically on these grounds, however, would be wasting his time, for there is no physical means to prove or disprove such a change.
Is Transubstantiation Unbelievable?

To get this, you have to know how philosophy defines "accidental change" from "substantial change." Hint; it's not what the common usage would suggest.

 

[-57]

I can understand how it might seem like details are being swapped, but this would then imply that the Bible teaches a particular view on its inspiration (which it may not), and then some folks (like yourself) apparently assume out of t his that what we have in Genesis is the same kind of writing, the same nature of literature, as we find in Exodus and onward. Personally, I don't think it is.

But, between the two of us as mutual Christians, I don't mind if you think Adam and Eve were literal figures of history.

Luke 3:23

Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, Heli, Matthat, Levi, Melki, Jannai, Joseph, Mattathias, Amos, Nahum, Esli, Naggai, Maath, Mattathias, Semein, Josech, Joda, Joanan, Rhesa, Zerubbabel, Shealtiel, Neri, Melki, Addi, Cosam, Elmadam, Er, Joshua, Eliezer, Jorim, Matthat, Levi, Simeon, Judah, Joseph, Jonam, Eliakim, Melea, Menna, Mattatha, Nathan, David, Jesse, Obed, Boaz, Salmon, Nahshon, Amminadab, Ram, Hezron, Perez, Judah, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Terah, Nahor, Serug, Reu, Peleg, Eber, Shelah, Cainan, Arphaxad, Shem, Noah, Lamech, Methuselah, Enoch, Jared, Mahalalel, Kenan, Enosh, Seth, Adam, God.

Can you show me where this linage went from fact to fiction?

 

[-57]

The Nazis actually tried that experiment. They raided a church, right after consecration of the host. And lab analysis showed only bread and wine. Triumphantly, they announced Christianity to be a fraud.

But that's not what transubstantiation is.

“Transubstantiation” is an English term based on the Latin words for the process of change in substance, as “transportation” is for the process of changing location. In Catholic theology, “transubstantiation” indicates the change that the elements of communion undergo when they change from bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. This change is utterly unique because this substantial change occurs without any accidental change. With the exception of some remarkable Eucharistic miracles, transubstantiation does not result in a change that is empirically detectable or scientifically provable. The doctrine is thus not believed because of any perceived change, but it is believed to be the best explanation for biblical statements that identify the communion meal with Jesus’ body and blood (John 6:53-58; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Cor. 11:26-27), as well as the testimony of the historic church.


Those complaining that the bread and wine do not appear to be flesh and blood, then, are not only expressing common sense, but they affirm the teaching of the Church. A skeptic who tries to disprove transubstantiation scientifically on these grounds, however, would be wasting his time, for there is no physical means to prove or disprove such a change.
Is Transubstantiation Unbelievable?

To get this, you have to know how philosophy defines "accidental change" from "substantial change." Hint; it's not what the common usage would suggest.

They got all that from Jesus saying..this is my body? Wow, I'm impressed.

What was in the cup?

 

[-57]

Then run in your own doctrinal presuppositions and declare that that's what the Scripture really means.

Once again...what was in the cup at the last supper?

 

[Jipsah]

The inference of evolutionism as Gods means of creating mankind...isn't biblically based.

Neither is your notion that God just said "Fiat lux!" and the electromagnetic spectrum immediately existed, from DC to daylight, in all of its stupendous complexity, without God having had to do any preliminary design work at all. But that may be how y'all think of any act of creation, from God's creation of universe to engineers creating integrated circuits. One day it's not there and the next it is in both cases, right? You never see God as the Artist, the Engineer, the Designer, and the Ultimate Genius from Whom all this incomprehensibly intricate universe came to be. You se Him as a magician, pulling a rabbit out of a hat, who didn't have to create rabbit and the hat, and all the unfathomable complexity of a place where hat or bunny could exist at all. You can never appreciate the utter impossibility of everything apart from the work of God. To y'all it "just happened".How sad.

Rather it is based upon controversial ever changing science.

Yeah, they're gonna prove that gravity doesn't exist any day now.

So, it appears to me it's okay for you to make inferences and hold some assumptions from the Bible even though the biblical writers didn't qualify some certain details.

What's not OK is to be a phony baloney "literalist" who only takes Scripture literally when it doesn't conflict with their doctrine. They believe that what the writers of Genesis said literally, even though they were dealing with concepts that could never for an instant understood, to be literally authoritative, while they reject the literal words of our Lord Christ, Who is all-knowing, and Who was speaking of His own Body and Blood, because their doctrine doesn't accept it and because it's impossible for them to comprehend.

But what actually happens is the details are swapped out...removed from the bible...such as the details of forming man from the dust then women from his rib. Evolution is substituted.

Yeah, jmust grab up some dust, wave the wand, and you got yourself a man. Creation? Nothing easier! Atheists believe in the same kind of magic, where everything there is, in all its unfathomable and unknowable complexity, just happened as the result of an explosion of some sort. Both viewpoints trivialize both the universe and its creation.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Luke 3:23

Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, Heli, Matthat, Levi, Melki, Jannai, Joseph, Mattathias, Amos, Nahum, Esli, Naggai, Maath, Mattathias, Semein, Josech, Joda, Joanan, Rhesa, Zerubbabel, Shealtiel, Neri, Melki, Addi, Cosam, Elmadam, Er, Joshua, Eliezer, Jorim, Matthat, Levi, Simeon, Judah, Joseph, Jonam, Eliakim, Melea, Menna, Mattatha, Nathan, David, Jesse, Obed, Boaz, Salmon, Nahshon, Amminadab, Ram, Hezron, Perez, Judah, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Terah, Nahor, Serug, Reu, Peleg, Eber, Shelah, Cainan, Arphaxad, Shem, Noah, Lamech, Methuselah, Enoch, Jared, Mahalalel, Kenan, Enosh, Seth, Adam, God.

Can you show me where this linage went from fact to fiction?

Well, I could be wrong, but I think you'd have to establish how Luke arrived that it was fact and that Luke did a perfect job of establishing his geneological list. We can't say that someone is moving Luke's account from fact to fiction until you've established that what Luke wrote is fact in the strictest sense. How do you think Luke established his list as fact, so that we can then ascertain that Adam was known to have existed?

 

[nolidad]

So in this creation information, where/when was Jupiter and the other plants made. You've left out answering the 1 questions which in regards to the time the planets where made and how a first day would work for a globe earth with each zone having it's own time of the day.

You have to factually back this up just based on what you said "divinely inspired" means.

Most likely when he created the stars of the universe though that is not absolute! He did create them in the first six days of time however.

 

[-57]

Well, I could be wrong, but I think you'd have to establish how Luke arrived that it was fact and that Luke did a perfect job of establishing his geneological list. We can't say that someone is moving Luke's account from fact to fiction until you've established that what Luke wrote is fact in the strictest sense. How do you think Luke established his list as fact, so that we can then ascertain that Adam was known to have existed?

The point was...Theo-Evos present Adam and a make believe individual...and the bible presents Adam as literal and historical. I was curious as to where the linage changed from fact to fiction.

Here's another where adam is presented as literal and historical...Jude 1:14 It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones,

 

[Jipsah]

Beep, beep, back the truck up.....27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread,.....what is it? bread or body?

What did our Lord Christ say it was? You appear to have missed that part. And if you eat and drink that bread and that cup (Welchade in your case) unworthily, what does St. Paul say that you're guilty of? And what is it he says you're failing to discern? Is he tasking you for failing to discern what isn't there in the first place?

What was in the cup?

Welchade, precisely what you'd use to wash down a bit of cookie involved in a purely religious ritual. Anyway, I'm done here. You and I obviously don't share any religious common ground here. You can blather away about how those of us who don't take Genesis literally don't believe the Bible, and I will the same of anyone who denies the explicit words of God Incarnate from His own lips. Fare you well.

 

[Jipsah]

The bread only represented Jesus' body.

Despite what He said. Your word over His, then. I'll pass.

 

[The Barbarian]

Once again...what was in the cup at the last supper?

He says it was His blood. Will you believe Him, or not?