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.
As if I didn't know the distinction between Deus Revelatus and Deus absconditus. Is that condensation in tone I hear from you?There are things He doesn't tell us about............................ and we need to have the humility to realize how and why that even we as Christians don't know everything.
How about applying grace, mercy, compassion and understanding with each other as siblings in Christ? With the way politics is leading the way these days, it almost seems like these fruits of the Spirit are being put on the back-burner in the name of some off-kilter understanding of what Truth and Politics is and is supposed to be between us who are of various positions within the Body of Christ.
Each of us has our own viewpoint in Christ. That's all I'm saying. Somewhere in all of that, I bet you and I have a lot of overlap, we just can't seem to get there because in this thread, Adam and Eve is the prime issue. Well, it isn't the only issue (or the only doctrine of significance).
As if I didn't know the distinction between Deus Revelatus and Deus absconditus. Is that condensation in tone I hear from you?
No, I didn't mention self-control because I wasn't explicitely citing any specific verse from Galatians. But now that you've brought it up, surely you and I should both be applying it to the conversation at hand, right?You forgot self-control. That's a good one for staying in the will of The Father.
One of the benefits of the filling of The Holy Spirit is how The Holy Spirit can be allowed to lead instead of our mind. The only viewpoint that is important after that is Jesus.
Demonstration of your assertion?
The Word of God need not be take literal in every instance.
Need not be all literal.that it was the truth of God vested with the authority of God and backed by the power of God (Mt 5:17-19).
Again you presume all scripture to be literal.He treated arguments from Scripture as having clinching force. When he said, "It is written," that was final. There was no appeal against Scripture, for "the scripture cannot be broken." (Mt 4:5, Mt 4:7, Mt 4:10, Jn 10:35). God's word holds good forever.
He constantly scolded the Jews for their ignorance and neglect of Scripture: "Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures?". . ."Have you not read. . .?". . ."Go and learn what this means. . ." (Mk 12:24, Mt 12:3, Mt 12:5, Mt 19:4, Mt 21:16, Mt 21:42,
Mt 9:13).
Just curious Do you also believe the Parables depicted actual literal historical evens? Like an actual a prodigal son who returned? A good Samaritan who helped while Jews kept walking? Etc.Likewise, Jesus himself submitted to the OT as the word of God:
he lived a life of obedience to Scripture (Lk 4:17-21, Mt 8:16-17, Mt 11:2-5),
and then he died in obedience to Scripture (Lk 18:31, Mk 8:31, Mk 9:31, Mk 10:33-34, Mt 26:24, Lk 22:37, Mt 26:53-56),
when he arose, he explained who he was by the Scriptures (Lk 24:44-47, Lk 24:27),
he presented himself to the Jews as the fulfiller of Scripture (Jn 5:39-40, Jn 5:46-47).
Belief in the truth of the OT was the foundation of Jesus' whole ministry.
I'm sure you'll understand if I agree with Jesus.
It's your assumption. . .no need for me to defend it.The Word of God need not be take literal in every instance.
Need not be all literal.
Again you presume all scripture to be literal.
Just curious Do you also believe the Parables depicted actual literal historical evens? Like an actual a prodigal son who returned? A good Samaritan who helped while Jews kept walking? Etc.
You/re 70 years old and lack a whole lot of experience in Christian things.
A change of heart will easily be a martyr, a change of mind can be easily played with and betray The Lord. The true born again experience is the change of heart that is loyal to death.
In other words, it seems Ehrman only had a change of mind since it was so easily played with by his professors.
If it were an assumption I would ne be asking.It's your assumption. . .no need for me to defend it.
Actually, Ehrman had a change of heart downward because he couldn't get over the Argument from Evil and Suffering. it was this specific argument that did his faith in, his words.
You're missing my point.
Question for you: I had a born again experience similar to Paul's, do you think a person with their words would be able to talk me out of my faith?
I don't think you'd be able to be talked out of your faith and I'm glad to hear that's the case with you. Be blessed in that!
Correct.
"A person with an experience is never at the mercy of a person with an opinion."
I feel very fortunate to have had such a experienced based enlightenment, but not everyone is that fortunate. Some folks have a change of mind moment rather than a sort of face-to-face with Jesus experience, and they are really just running on personal belief from that point on.
For a person to be talked out of their faith like Ehrman, I consider such a person having a just a change of mind type Christianity, and such a person can be played with by people and their words, and their minds ultimately changed if they are not careful.
Such holier than thou attititude. Can't even cite on example as mainstream.The literalist is so locked into an "A, then B, then C, then D, and therefore Y" sort of mindset that the theology becomes cartoonish and all the mystery and profundity of Christianity are lost. The literalist can't see the glorious forest for all the literalist trees. Statements such as "I am the way and the truth and the life," "No one comes to the father except through me," and "You must be born again from above" are huge mysteries that could be meditated upon for the rest of one's life - but not to a literalist, for whom they are just theological boxes to be checked, little litmus tests to gauge whether one is a "real" Christian. Hence my description of literalism as Perpetual Vacation Bible School. I don't say it's wrong or displeasing to God, merely that it seems to me a shallower version of Christianity than I could accept.
A non literal Adam doesn't change a thing. It simply shifts the blame to us, rather than a man made of dust. Adam is a type of the one who is to come, and Adam, or in Hebrew "humanity" is an archetype representing all of us.Fails to address a central NT doctrine: imputation of Adam's sin (Ro 5:17, 12-16) as the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputation of Christ's righteousness (Ro 5:18-19, 1:17, 3:21, 4:5, 13, 9:30, 10:6, Gal 3:16, Php 3:9).
Non-existent Adam and Eve is a serious Biblical error, destroying a central NT doctrine. . .
ANATHEMA!
Adam being archetypal and not a literal person does not make the account untrue. Just as we wouldn't call the story of the good Samaritan untrue just because it was a parable.So do I.
My question is directed to those questioning the legitimacy of the account. If it is not true, then there would be no reason for Jesus to demand that we be born from above, and His work He accomplished here was unnecessary. He could of just stayed up in heaven.
Just FWIW, that was the last straw that drove him to atheism. He was a rigid fundamentalist who was shocked - shocked I tell you! - to discover that there were even minor errors and textual variations in the NT and that it wasn't - gasp! - rigidly, perfectly "inerrant." That's what started him down his long path to where he is today (his work still being very valuable, BTW). In my considerable dealings with atheists, it is almost ALWAYS the literalist, inerrantist position they are attacking (probably because it's the easiest target).Actually, Ehrman had a change of heart downward because he couldn't get over the Argument from Evil and Suffering. it was this specific argument that did his faith in, his words.
Just FWIW, that was the last straw that drove him to atheism. He was a rigid fundamentalist who was shocked - shocked I tell you! - to discover that there were even minor errors and textual variations in the NT and that it wasn't - gasp! - rigidly, perfectly "inerrant." That's what started him down his long path to where he is today (his work still being very valuable, BTW). In my considerable dealings with atheists, it is almost ALWAYS the literalist, inerrantist position they are attacking (probably because it's the easiest target).
Just FWIW, that was the last straw that drove him to atheism. He was a rigid fundamentalist who was shocked - shocked I tell you! - to discover that there were even minor errors and textual variations in the NT and that it wasn't - gasp! - rigidly, perfectly "inerrant." That's what started him down his long path to where he is today (his work still being very valuable, BTW). In my considerable dealings with atheists, it is almost ALWAYS the literalist, inerrantist position they are attacking (probably because it's the easiest target).
lol. Poor Bart. For the record, I'm laughing at the erroneous perception of sovereignty, not Bart himself.to discover that there were even minor errors and textual variations in the NT and that it wasn't - gasp! - rigidly, perfectly "inerrant."
You died and seen the third Heaven? I'm intrigued.Question for you: I had a born again experience similar to Paul's, do you think a person with their words would be able to talk me out of my faith?
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?