Why Acceptance of the Genesis Account is Extremely Important For Christians

[Jipsah]

Well, saying they are stupid is merely expressing an opinion

Yet stupid they remain.

opinions are considered the shadows cast on the wall with no real substance in Plato's famous cave allegory.

Old Plato was a card, wasn't he?

 

[Jipsah]

Would you accuse Shakespeare or any other literary personage of never meaning what he said because he regularly employed symbolic language such as similes and metaphors?

But Genesis must not be considered symbolic or metaphorical, no matter how much physical evidence militates against it being literal. Right.

So in the end it boils down to the doctrine that you filter the Scripture through. If your doctrine says that a six solar day creation must be taken literally but Words of God Himself are to be considered of no real significance, then that's what you declare to be the Clear Teaching of Scripture.

Sorry, chief, but when God says so Himself, then I believe it, no matter how many people assure me that He couldn't have really meant it.

 

[Jipsah]

Strawman: I never said that Christ can't be believed.

You simply don't believe what He said. And for pity's sake learn what "strawman" means!

That is your conclusion because you choose to reject that Jesus was capable of speaking symbolically

We're not arguing that He couldn't speak metaphorically; He did it all the time. We're saying that there's no reason to believe that in this case He didn't meant precisely what He said. Unless of course He's squashing a favorite doctrine, in which case you have to spiritualize away like murder to preserve the doctrine intact.

Also, the prohibition of consuming blood predates the Torah.

Our Lord, being God, and having inspired the Torah, presumably knew that, yet He chose to say that His followers were to drink His Blood and eat His Flesh (and thus causing a bunch of them to leave Him). But you say He was just pulling their chains a bit, right?

But if you would, be good enough to explain these words from St. Paul:

27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 30For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Not discerning what, did he say? Guilty of what, did he say? The Body and Blood of our Lord that your lot says isn't there at all? Kinda of a major point of disagreement between y'all and the old saint, isn't there?

 

[mmksparbud]

So relying on sight and reason to say that Jesus didn't mean the bread and wine were His body and blood is fine; but to do the same to recognize an innumerable amount of evidence which points us to an old universe, an old earth, an millions of years of evolution of life on this planet is wrong because, it is insisted, that we read a poetic telling of creation as literally true and all evidence to the contrary must be discarded.

Again. Backward.

-CryptoLutheran

You ignored this when it was shown you by someone else---
Joh 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
Joh 6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
Joh 6:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

He was talking spiritually.

 

[Jipsah]

He was talking spiritually.

be good enough to explain these words from St. Paul:

27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 30For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Not discerning what, did he say? Guilty of what, did he say? The Body and Blood of our Lord that your lot says isn't there at all? Kinda of a major point of disagreement between y'all and the old saint, isn't there?

 

[mmksparbud]

Not discerning the Lords body---as Jesus himself said---Spiritual ---just to partake of the bread and wine without acknowledging that it represents the body and blood of Jesus is wrong. Have you seen it become the actual blood and raw flesh of Jesus? Does it taste like blood, is it the same consisteny, does it smell like blood---how about the bread, has it turned into a handful of fresh raw meat----what did it taste like" Was it hard tlo chew? There was a reformed former cannibal from New Guinea that preached at my high chool. Yes, someone asked him what human flesh tatsed like, he said pretty close to chicken---would you agree?
I was a dialysis tech for 20 years--have had my hands covered in blood--with no gloves on even, this was before the aids scare and we were sometimes lax on glove wearing and other protective clothing. I know what blood is like. Had much of it on my uniforms over the years. I also am not a vegetarian and know what raw meat looks like. I would never partake of the bread and wine without much prayer and seriousness. It is not to be taken lightly--it REPRESENTS the blood and body of Jesus shed for our sins.

 

[Archivist]

Not discerning the Lords body---as Jesus himself said---Spiritual ---just to partake of the bread and wine without acknowledging that it represents the body and blood of Jesus is wrong. Have you seen it become the actual blood and raw flesh of Jesus? Does it taste like blood, is it the same consisteny, does it smell like blood---how about the bread, has it turned into a handful of fresh raw meat----what did it taste like" Was it hard tlo chew? There was a reformed former cannibal from New Guinea that preached at my high chool. Yes, someone asked him what human flesh tatsed like, he said pretty close to chicken---would you agree?
I was a dialysis tech for 20 years--have had my hands covered in blood--with no gloves on even, this was before the aids scare and we were sometimes lax on glove wearing and other protective clothing. I know what blood is like. Had much of it on my uniforms over the years. I also am not a vegetarian and know what raw meat looks like. I would never partake of the bread and wine without much prayer and seriousness. It is not to be taken lightly--it REPRESENTS the blood and body of Jesus shed for our sins.

Jesus was clear: This is my body, this is the New Trstament in my blood. He didn't say the bread and wine represented anything. He said it was. Those are the direct words of our Lord and Savior.

I don't care what Holy Communion tastes like. You claim, based on two differing accounts written by one or more unknown individuals during the Bronze Age, that God created the Universe and all that is in it in six 24 hour days and that as Christians we must believe that but deny that God has the ability to make His body and His blood appear as bread and wine. A snake can talk, a woman can be formed out of a man's rib, but wine cannot be his blood because it does not taste like blood, bread cannot be His body because it does not taste like human flesh.

Am I the only one who has a problem with your reasoning?

And, for the record, I don't believe that Christians need to believe that the bread and wine in Holy Communion is Christ's body and blood. I do becasue Jesus said it was. But don't tell me, as some have done in this thread, that to be a Christian I must believe the Genesis account of creation while dismissing the plain meaning of the words of Jesus.

 

[Radrook]

You simply don't believe what He said. And for pity's sake learn what "strawman" means!

We're not arguing that He couldn't speak metaphorically; He did it all the time. We're saying that there's no reason to believe that in this case He didn't meant precisely what He said. Unless of course He's squashing a favorite doctrine, in which case you have to spiritualize away like murder to preserve the doctrine intact.

Our Lord, being God, and having inspired the Torah, presumably knew that, yet He chose to say that His followers were to drink His Blood and eat His Flesh (and thus causing a bunch of them to leave Him). But you say He was just pulling their chains a bit, right?

But if you would, be good enough to explain these words from St. Paul:

27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 30For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Not discerning what, did he say? Guilty of what, did he say? The Body and Blood of our Lord that your lot says isn't there at all? Kinda of a major point of disagreement between y'all and the old saint, isn't there?

For all practical rhetorical effects that's exactly what you are saying via adopting an inflexible symbolically incapable Jesus. For mercy's sake, and for the sake of sanity learn what the acceptable literary devices are. I did, I passed my college English composition classes with flying colors and was invited to tutor those in need of remedial instruction. I respectfully suggest you avail yourself of that amenity. Makes for a smoother conversation that really goes somewhere instead of proceeding with annoying and distracting and totally unnecessary fits and starts caused by lack of knowledge from one of the aspiring albeit knowledge- deficient participants.

BTW
There is no common basis for further discussion anyway since you are talking about a Triune God and I am not. Totally irrelevant from the subject matter perspective but seemingly of paramount importance to you since you go out of your way to squeeze it in. So since it is of utmost importance to you then you need to discuss the subject with a Trinitarian who will docily and smilingly agree to that presupposition.

In any case, in this particular case Jesus CLEARLY told them his words were spiritual and not literal as the scripture I cited and you ignored points out. So IMHO, from this point on any your denial of that fact brings the discussion to an end. Why? Well, you see, Christ assigned Christians to teach and preach. He did not intend for Christians to debate in order to force those who resisted the Gospel into submission. He said that his sheep would hear his voice and follow. If there is no following-then it simply is what it is.

 

[Radrook]

For all practical rhetorical effects that's exactly what you are saying via adopting an inflexible symbolically incapable Jesus. For mercy's sake, and for the sake of sanity learn what the acceptable literary devices are. I did, I passed my college English composition classes with flying colors and was invited to tutor those in need of remedial instruction. I respectfully suggest you avail yourself of that amenity. Makes for a smoother conversation that really goes somewhere instead of proceeding with annoying and distracting and totally unnecessary fits and starts caused by lack of knowledge from one of the aspiring albeit knowledge- deficient participants.

BTW
There is no common basis for further discussion anyway since you are talking about a Triune God and I am not. Totally irrelevant from the subject matter perspective but seemingly of paramount importance to you since you go out of your way to squeeze it in. So since it is of utmost importance to you then you need to discuss the subject with a Trinitarian who will docily and smilingly agree to that presupposition.

In any case, in this particular case Jesus CLEARLY told them his words were spiritual and not literal as the scripture I cited and you ignored points out. So IMHO, from this point on any your denial of that fact brings the discussion to an end. Why? Well, you see, Christ assigned Christians to teach and preach. He did not intend for Christians to debate in order to force those who resisted the Gospel into submission. He said that his sheep would hear his voice and follow. If there is no following-then it simply is what it is.

 

[Radrook]

Yet stupid they remain.

Old Plato was a card, wasn't he?

Sounds as if you are totally unfamiliar with the meaning of Plato's Cave Allegory and are choosing ridicule to obscure that fact. It simply means that statements of supposed facts are worthless unless supported by reliable evidence. Calling Plato old doesn't prove that statement false. In fact, it comes across as immature and peevish.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I really don't see how.

You're okay with Jesus using metaphor and simile, speaking in parables, etc. I'm also okay with this.
You're not okay with God using non-literal language in Genesis 1. I am okay with this.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Radrook]

Jesus was clear: This is my body, this is the New Trstament in my blood. He didn't say the bread and wine represented anything. He said it was. Those are the direct words of our Lord and Savior.

I don't care what Holy Communion tastes like. You claim, based on two differing accounts written by one or more unknown individuals during the Bronze Age, that God created the Universe and all that is in it in six 24 hour days and that as Christians we must believe that but deny that God has the ability to make His body and His blood appear as bread and wine. A snake can talk, a woman can be formed out of a man's rib, but wine cannot be his blood because it does not taste like blood, bread cannot be His body because it does not taste like human flesh.

Am I the only one who has a problem with your reasoning?

And, for the record, I don't believe that Christians need to believe that the bread and wine in Holy Communion is Christ's body and blood. I do becasue Jesus said it was. But don't tell me, as some have done in this thread, that to be a Christian I must believe the Genesis account of creation while dismissing the plain meaning of the words of Jesus.

Your insistence that Jesus is always literal when he speaks creates insurmountable interpretational problems:


Things Jesus Said He Was



If we insist that his being bread is literal, then we would have to insist that he was being literal in other scriptures as well.


(John 6:41)
I am that bread of life.

(John 6:48)

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
(John 6:51)


------------------------------------------
Jesus was literally shining in the darkness?

Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
(John 8:12)

As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.
(John 9:5)


---------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus is a literal wooden door swiveling on hinges?

Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
(John 10:7)

I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
(John 10:9)

----------------------------------------------------

Jesus is a literal shepherd of literal sheep?

I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
(John 10:11)

----------------------------------

Jesus is a literal plant which his Father literally tends?

I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
(John 15:1)

---------------------------------

We are literal branches bearing literal fruit?

I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
(John 15:5)

-------------------

Jesus is a literal star or planet? Venus maybe? Also a literal root?

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
(Revelation 22:16)

 

[Radrook]

You're okay with Jesus using metaphor and simile, speaking in parables, etc. I'm also okay with this.
You're not okay with God using non-literal language in Genesis 1. I am okay with this.

-CryptoLutheran

Then I guess I misunderstood you. Whoa! I just reread your statement. No I did not misunderstand you. You are misrepresenting my position. I never stated that I am against Genesis being literal. Why do you feel that misrepresentation of a person's position on an issue constitutes efficient argumentation.? LOL! Where did you learn that? The school of how NOT to argue convincingly?

 

[Archivist]

Your insistence that Jesus is always literal when he speaks creates insurmountable interpretational problems:


Things Jesus Said He Was



If we insist that his being bread is literal, then we would have to insist that he was being literal in other scriptures as well.


(John 6:41)
I am that bread of life.

(John 6:48)

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
(John 6:51)


------------------------------------------
Jesus was literally shining in the darkness?

Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
(John 8:12)

As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.
(John 9:5)


---------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus is a literal wooden door swiveling on hinges?

Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
(John 10:7)

I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
(John 10:9)

----------------------------------------------------

Jesus is a literal shepherd of literal sheep?

I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
(John 10:11)

----------------------------------

Jesus is a literal plant which his Father literally tends?

I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
(John 15:1)

---------------------------------

We are literal branches bearing literal fruit?

I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
(John 15:5)

-------------------

Jesus is a literal star or planet? Venus maybe? Also a literal root?

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
(Revelation 22:16)

You deny that Jesus is the Good Shephard, you deny that He is the Light of the World, but claim that a literal belief in the Genesis creation account is required for Christians?

 

[Radrook]

You deny that Jesus is the Good Shephard, but claim that a literal belief in the Genesis creation account is required for Christians?

Oh puleeees!! You know that I'm not denying neither veracity nor meaning of Jesus' symbolic words. So how many more straw men are you planning to use before you admit you were wrong?

 

[Archivist]

Oh puleeees!! You know that I'm not denying neither veracity nor meaning of Jesus' symbolic words. So how many more straw men are you planning to use before you admit you were wrong?

First, I'm correct. You are the one picking and choosing what parts of Scripture are and are not "literal." I'm not the one saying that one must believe in a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account to be a Christian as some in this thread have claimed.

Second, you need to learn what "strawman" means.

 

[Armoured]

Your insistence that Jesus is always literal when he speaks creates insurmountable interpretational problems:


Things Jesus Said He Was



If we insist that his being bread is literal, then we would have to insist that he was being literal in other scriptures as well.


(John 6:41)
I am that bread of life.

(John 6:48)

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
(John 6:51)


------------------------------------------
Jesus was literally shining in the darkness?

Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
(John 8:12)

As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.
(John 9:5)


---------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus is a literal wooden door swiveling on hinges?

Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
(John 10:7)

I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
(John 10:9)

----------------------------------------------------

Jesus is a literal shepherd of literal sheep?

I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
(John 10:11)

----------------------------------

Jesus is a literal plant which his Father literally tends?

I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
(John 15:1)

---------------------------------

We are literal branches bearing literal fruit?

I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
(John 15:5)

-------------------

Jesus is a literal star or planet? Venus maybe? Also a literal root?

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
(Revelation 22:16)

You're aaaalmost there...

 

[mmksparbud]

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

This is said right after the bread and wine----the words He spoke were spiritual. There is no such statement made in Genesis. And the disciples believed in Genesis.

A Christian that doesn't believe in the Genesis account sounds very strange to me as up until the last 50 years, there were no Christian evolutionists. You either believed in the creation or you didn't. Is it a salvation issue? I can't be 100% certain. Bit it seems that those who do not, are p[lacing their believe system not on the word of God but on man's science. The communion turning into the actual blood and flesh of Jesus is not being replaced by science but by Jesus saying His words were spiritual. It is however, very true that I've seen no actual blood and flesh at the communion. Those that believe that the creation week is not true, say they see no evidence that it is, but they see that science days it is not. All through the NT, it is clear the disciples believed it, Jesus believed it, He certainly didn't state anhything different. To deny that the bible says that God made the world in 5 days of each day being morning and evening, says you deny that God could not have done, it denies His power to do. The communion as spiritual is not being denied as from Jesus, just that He said it is spiritual, and in over 2000 years, it has remained so for no one has seen it otherwise. It's not that God certainly can't do it, He turned rivers into blood, we are not denying His power to do so, I imagine that God can make real life flesh out of the bread, it's just that in all this time He never has and Jesus said it was spiritual words He spoke. If He did not say it was spiritual, then you would have a point, but it is still true that He never has turned it to living blood and flesh. As it is, I can not see that the 2 are the same.
It is clear there are rocks that are millions of years old--it is also true that the bible says that when Jesus began creating, it says clearly that the earth was empty and void, and had waster. So that there was something here, an asteroid or core of some sort if pretty clear, and it doesn't say how long it was like that. I believe in some distant past Jesus placed that core there then came back and began the creation week when He felt the time was right, But that is not directly stated. That it could have been there for millions of years BEFORE creation started is not going against the word of God, it is agreeing with it. But that is all. He says everything else, He created in evening and morning segments of 6 days.
Is anyone going to hell for not believing in the 6 day creation account??---not or me to say. But it does deny His power to do so and if you deny Him, you will be denied, that much is written.
There is biblical grounds for communion being spiritual--Jesus said so---there is no similar statement for creation week.

 

[Archivist]

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

This is said right after the bread and wine----the words He spoke were spiritual. There is no such statement made in Genesis. And the disciples believed in Genesis.

A Christian that doesn't believe in the Genesis account sounds very strange to me as up until the last 50 years, there were no Christian evolutionists. You either believed in the creation or you didn't. Is it a salvation issue? I can't be 100% certain. Bit it seems that those who do not, are p[lacing their believe system not on the word of God but on man's science. The communion turning into the actual blood and flesh of Jesus is not being replaced by science but by Jesus saying His words were spiritual. It is however, very true that I've seen no actual blood and flesh at the communion. Those that believe that the creation week is not true, say they see no evidence that it is, but they see that science days it is not. All through the NT, it is clear the disciples believed it, Jesus believed it, He certainly didn't state anhything different. To deny that the bible says that God made the world in 5 days of each day being morning and evening, says you deny that God could not have done, it denies His power to do. The communion as spiritual is not being denied as from Jesus, just that He said it is spiritual, and in over 2000 years, it has remained so for no one has seen it otherwise. It's not that God certainly can't do it, He turned rivers into blood, we are not denying His power to do so, I imagine that God can make real life flesh out of the bread, it's just that in all this time He never has and Jesus said it was spiritual words He spoke. If He did not say it was spiritual, then you would have a point, but it is still true that He never has turned it to living blood and flesh. As it is, I can not see that the 2 are the same.
It is clear there are rocks that are millions of years old--it is also true that the bible says that when Jesus began creating, it says clearly that the earth was empty and void, and had waster. So that there was something here, an asteroid or core of some sort if pretty clear, and it doesn't say how long it was like that. I believe in some distant past Jesus placed that core there then came back and began the creation week when He felt the time was right, But that is not directly stated. That it could have been there for millions of years BEFORE creation started is not going against the word of God, it is agreeing with it. But that is all. He says everything else, He created in evening and morning segments of 6 days.
Is anyone going to hell for not believing in the 6 day creation account??---not or me to say. But it does deny His power to do so and if you deny Him, you will be denied, that much is written.
There is biblical grounds for communion being spiritual--Jesus said so---there is no similar statement for creation week.

Actually the words that you quoted--John 6:63--were said after Jesus had fed the 5000 and walked on water, not after the Last Supper.

 

[mmksparbud]

Joh 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Joh 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
Joh 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
Joh 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
Joh 6:59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
Joh 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
Joh 6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
Joh 6:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Joh 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
Joh 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
Joh 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.


The feeding of the 5000 or walking on water are not mentioned.