Voting in favor of your Bible POV - God's Word

[BobRyan]

5. The bible account is true but we don't understand it fully.

There are many things we do not "fully understand" in the Bible
1. The Trinity
2. The incarnation of God the Son as Jesus Christ
3. Exactly how it is that God raises the dead
4. Exactly how God restores sight to the blind
5. The New Birth

 

[Jipsah]

How do you understand Jesus's comment, "Take, eat, this is my Body, which is given for you."?

Literally.

 

[BobRyan]

How do you understand Jesus's comment, "Take, eat, this is my Body, which is given for you."?

Maybe we should start a thread on that topic and even have some voting options for it on that other thread --

 

[BobRyan]

Here's another poll I suggest for you:
..
Our Lord Christ was correct when He said "Take; eat; this is my body which is given for you." and "Drink of it, all of you.

I agree that is another topic for another poll on another thread. But I would be very interested in participating in it if you want to start it.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Maybe we should start a thread on that topic and even have some voting options for it on that other thread --

I thought that kinda was the topic, but yeah, that would be fine with me.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Literally.

Then what's the problem?

 

[mlepfitjw]

I believe in freedom. Freedom in Christ Jesus.

 

[BobRyan]

I believe in freedom. Freedom in Christ Jesus.

Everyone has free will you can choose as you wish

 

[Jipsah]

Maybe we should start a thread on that topic and even have some voting options for it on that other thread --

Why? You believe what He said or you don't. If you don't then you're in agreement with all those folks who deserted Him when He said it. It is, after all "This is an hard saying; who can hear it?". Now those folks took Him literally/ They hadn't bristled at His parables, or His calling Himself "the gate", but this stuff about His Body and Blood stopped them in their tracks. " From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him." Did He explain Himself to those who remained, or correct their misunderstanding of His meaning? Far from it. "Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?" To our eternal blessing as well as theirs, they stayed.

So sorry mate, the old "it's just an analogy" rigamarole doesn't answer. He gave it with a "take it or leave it", those who left it left it literally.

So if we're deciding which Scriptures must to be taken literally, either the highly poeticized account of the Creation in Genesis, or the take it or leave it presentation of our Lord's own words in the Gospels, I'm saying the our Lord's Words in the Gospels are the ones that are of ultimate importance. If you reject them you have reduced all of SCripture to merely academic significance.

 

[DamianWarS]

Its primary use is not as a history book

I would say it's not a science book, but it indeed is a history book, it's just not a western history book.

 

[Gary K]

remember, once again, our Lord said what He said, and that is undeniable. And He said "Take, eat, this is my Body, which is given for you."

And what was it that Jesus and His disciples had before them that night.

Matthew 26: 26 ¶And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.

So what was it that Jesus and His disciples ate that night? Bread. What was it that they drank? The fruit of the vine: grape juice. He didn't give them His own flesh and blood for He was right there with them. His object lesson was clearly symbolic just like the Passover lamb was symbolic of His death on Calvary.

People read all kinds of things into His statements that night, but the context of the story of the last supper tells us Jesus' meaning was symbolic just like the Passover lamb was symbolic.

Jesus replaced one ceremony with another. He also replaced one symbolic event with another. The first symbolic event looked forward to Him. The second looked back to remind us of Him and His sacrifice. Just like the Passover lamb looked forward to Him and His sacrifice.

 

[Dkh587]

My vote is, the 7 day creation is literal and historical fact, and it disagrees/goes against so-called “science”

 

[Jipsah]

So what was it that Jesus and His disciples ate that night? Bread.

You don't take it literally. Got it. I say you're wrong. If God Himself says "this is My Body", then that's what it is. The standard Zwinglian "it's just a memorial" stuff is a pernicious untruth.

I assume that you believe that you take the 7 days of Creation literally though, right?

 

[Jipsah]

My vote is, the 7 day creation is literal and historical fact, and it disagrees/goes against so-called “science”

So why don't you believe that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are our Lord's Body and Blood? Zis mean Genesis is important but the words of God Himself not so much?

 

[Gary K]

You don't take it literally. Got it. I say you're wrong. If God Himself says "this is My Body", then that's what it is. The standard Zwinglian "it's just a memorial" stuff is a pernicious untruth.

I assume that you believe that you take the 7 days of Creation literally though, right?

Ironic that you should bring up Zwingli. I'm reading J. H. Merle d'Aubigne's history of the 16th Century Reformation. Outstanding book. I also, not too long ago, finished reading the Selected Works of Huldrich Zwingli made available for download by The Online Library of Liberty. Another very good read. And Zwingli was correct in his theology. That you want to go back to the day's before the Reformation and the obvious corruption of the church of those days is sad. Truth keeps moving on. It's always going forward from one truth to the next and it always ties together in an unmistakable way. New truth never contradicts old truth. They just build on each other.

And the doctrine of transubstantiation does not fit with the teachings of the Bible. Therefore it is not truth.

Edit: Forgot to answer your question on creation. Yes, I believe in the Bible's story of creation. Literally. It's a literal story, just like the story of the last supper. Only what Jesus said there about His body and his blood was symbolic. Moses' story of creation is is not a story that is symbolic. He uses no symbolic language like Jesus did at the last supper.

 

[kiwimac]

Actually, it is--in addition to being divine revelation dealing with all sorts of spiritual matters.

The Bible is, in fact, the only documentary evidence of the great majority of the events in the life on Earth of the most important man who ever lived among us. And although there are those items in Scripture which have been argued about for centuries, the Bible has proven to be correct on one after another of them.

No, it is not and it has not been. The Bible is human accounts of encounters with the Divine.

 

[ViaCrucis]

None of the above.

The Bible doesn't give us an historical, literal accounting of material origins. Science does, and it is reliable. The creation stories aren't about how things got to be the way they are now, but about the relationship between God, man, and the rest of creation which ultimately points us to Jesus Christ who heals and sets right what went wrong.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Kenny'sID]

You don't take it literally.

But I asked you how you took it, you said literally in post 22, then I asked "Then what's the problem" you never answered, and now you say you say "You don't take it literally"

Whasup widat?

 

[Dkh587]

So why don't you believe that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are our Lord's Body and Blood? Zis mean Genesis is important but the words of God Himself not so much?

You are assuming... why don’t you ask me *if* I believe they are literal or not?

Exodus 20:8-11 are the words of God himself, btw.

 

[Albion]

No, it is not and it has not been. The Bible is human accounts of encounters with the Divine.

LOL. It's also a reference book for the lives of secular rulers, to the truth or falsity of the Deluge, to the parting of the Red Sea, to the background of the Magi, to the development of the Hebrew people, to the economy of the cities of Judea and Galilee, to the nature of the Roman government in that era, to the correct dating of events, and to a mountain of additional historical information. And historians as well as natural scientists do make use of all of this and more.