Childish God

Author: Sidewalker

Posts

Total: 94
#61
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Sidewalker
It was never intended to be read literally as a historical record.
The genealogies of the OT and NT suggest, at least in some instances, the texts were meant to be taken as an historical record.
#62
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@TWS1405
Both think they are right and know it all. Bigots the lot of them. 
Topic's author
#63
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@SkepticalOne
It was never intended to be read literally as a historical record.
The genealogies of the OT and NT suggest, at least in some instances, the texts were meant to be taken as an historical record.

True that, and there are literally thousands of them, Chronicles is all geneologies.

Genealogy has always been central to Jewish sacred history, lineage is an essential part of Judaism, and understanding genealogical descent is an integral part of the Torah. Genesis introduces the evolution of the physical universe with “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth”, then on to the generations of Adam, etc.  

Judaism is a matter of lineage, descent is central to Jewish identity, genealogy determined your Israelite and tribal affiliation. The Biblical narrative revolves around the sequence of the generations.
#64
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TWS1405
@Poly

Both think they are right and know it all. Bigots the lot of them.
Of course, to make such a statement Poly must assume that she is right and knows it all.
#65
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Sidewalker
Shila wrote: Jesus spoke about god at a very young age. His views did not evolve over time. Jesus even believed This childish god was his father.

The Boy Jesus at the Temple
Luke 2:41 Every year Jesus’ parents went to Jerusalem for the Festival of the Passover. 42 When he was twelve years old, they went up to the festival, according to the custom. 43 After the festival was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it. 44 Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. 45 When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. 46 After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47 Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. 48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.”
49 “Why were you searching for me?” he asked. “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?”[a] 50 But they did not understand what he was saying to them.
51 Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart. 52 And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.
This story has always amused me.

Here we have a woman chosen by God himself above all other women on the planet to be birth mother of his son and not even noticing that their "treasured" holy charge was absent until after a whole day's travelling!?  And they only recovered him after three whole days!!?
 Some "blessed among all women" she was, wasn't she? I am sure social services would have something to say about that if it were to happen today. 😂

And why on earth were they "astonished"!? Had this "blessed among all women" forgotten that the child that she had given birth to was gods son? 

Why didn't "they understand what he was saying to them"!? He was the son of God!

What is really hard to believe is how our spiritual detractors can make claims to being more "intelligent" and "logical" while demanding literal translations of religious narratives, anyone with even a basic understanding of religious narratives, would not call this "intelligent" or "logical".

Yes indeed. The whole New Testament is, as you suggest above, full of " illogical and unintelligent" ambiguous half stories told by men that didn't t even know him. This story of the son of god being lost by the god chosen mother of all mothers for 4 days in particular has to be among the most "unintelligent and illogical" (not to mention the silliest) in the bible.


The Bible is a book that includes history and prophecy, poetry and love songs, allegories and parables, none of which is conducive to any kind of literal translation. The information in the Old Testament was passed down verbally through many generations before it was finally written down in Hebrew and Aramaic, not exactly the most precise way to transmit information. Then, four hundred years after the Old Testament the New Testament began and it was written is Koine Greek. Until the invention of the printing press, each written copy had to be transcribed by hand, which we all know is a very inaccurate process.  For the oldest books of the Bible this went on for over 3,000 years, every single copy was transcribed by hand for generations and generations, and it started with information that had been handed down through the generations verbally. The language journey was roughly, verbal transmission in ancient Hebrew and Aramaic, initially written down in Koine Greek and Aramaic, then translated into Latin, then German, and finally English. 

Thereby rendering it in anyway a reliable source of the life and times of Christ in 1st century Palestine.  Very well put I must say, 'Sidewalker'. 10/10
Topic's author
#66
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Stephen
What is really hard to believe is how our spiritual detractors can make claims to being more "intelligent" and "logical" while demanding literal translations of religious narratives, anyone with even a basic understanding of religious narratives, would not call this "intelligent" or "logical".
Yes indeed. The whole New Testament is, as you suggest above, full of " illogical and unintelligent" ambiguous half stories told by men that didn't t even know him. This story of the son of god being lost by the god chosen mother of all mothers for 4 days in particular has to be among the most "unintelligent and illogical" (not to mention the silliest) in the bible.
Yes kiddies, the "I'm rubber, you're glue"philosophical argument is profoundly logical and a clear sign of superior intelligence.  

You are very clever, your atheist religion is strong, and you are devout, your intellectual analysis of ancient scripture is very humbling.  

#67
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Sidewalker
Given the metaphorical nature of language and the history of the Bible, I have to wonder where the idea that there could be any such thing as a “literal translation” start anyway?

The Bible is a book that includes history and prophecy, poetry and love songs, allegories and parables, none of which is conducive to any kind of literal translation. The information in the Old Testament was passed down verbally through many generations before it was finally written down in Hebrew and Aramaic, not exactly the most precise way to transmit information. Then, four hundred years after the Old Testament the New Testament began and it was written is Koine Greek. Until the invention of the printing press, each written copy had to be transcribed by hand, which we all know is a very inaccurate process.  For the oldest books of the Bible this went on for over 3,000 years, every single copy was transcribed by hand for generations and generations, and it started with information that had been handed down through the generations verbally. The language journey was roughly, verbal transmission in ancient Hebrew and Aramaic, initially written down in Koine Greek and Aramaic, then translated into Latin, then German, and finally English.

As an originative religious text, the narrative is codified memory as opposed to historical record, its intent was to “image” reality, and “relate” the individual to the whole, to help the individual understand where they fit it. It was never intended to be read literally as a historical record.
Jesus, Paul took the Bible literally.

What Jesus Thought About Genesis
All throughout Jesus’ ministry, He treated the Scriptures as fact. For example, when He claimed He was God in John 8-10, the Jews were offended, so He quoted Psalm 82:6 and then said, “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:34-35). That means the Bible is a faithful, reliable, and trustworthy witness.

Then, in Luke 24:25-27, Jesus rebuked His disciples for not believing everything the prophets had spoken about Him. This shows us that Jesus thought all Scripture should be believed.

We also see Jesus treat accounts from Genesis as historical fact. He referred to…

Adam and Eve as the first married couple (see Matthew 19:3-6, Mark 10:3-9).
Abel as the first martyred prophet (Luke 11:50-51).
Noah as a real person and the Flood as a real event (Matthew 24:38-39).
Lot and his wife as historical figures and Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction as a real event (Luke 17:28-32, Matthew 10:15).
In each of these passages, Jesus referred to Genesis accounts as historical facts, not allegories. For instance, if you look at Mark 10:6, Mark 13:19-20, and Luke 11:50-51, you can tell that Jesus believed Adam and Eve existed at nearly the same time that God created the world.

Mark 10:6 says, “But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female’” (ESV, emphasis added).

If Jesus believed Adam and Eve lived millions or billions of years after Creation, He wouldn’t have said “from the beginning of creation.” It seems that Jesus believed the Creation Week consisted of literal 24-hour days, not million-year periods of time.

How Old Testament Authors Viewed Genesis
Jesus isn’t the only biblical figure to interpret Genesis literally. If we look at the Old Testament, we only find a few references to Genesis 1-11, but each one treats those chapters as historically accurate accounts, not allegories.

We can see this clearly in the way the Jews treated genealogies. In Nehemiah 7:61-64, those who volunteered to serve in the new temple had to prove their priestly lineage. Those who couldn’t show they were descended from Aaron weren’t allowed to serve as priests.

Then, in 1 Chronicles 1-8, we see a long series of genealogies that goes all the way back to Adam. If we compare the series of names from Adam to Abraham in 1 Chronicles 1:1-28 to the genealogy in Genesis 5 and 11, we don’t find any missing or added names.

Clearly, the ancient Jews took painstaking measures to ensure accuracy in their genealogies. Why? Because they pointed to real historical accounts of their ancestors.

How Did New Testament Authors View Genesis?
Once again, we see genealogies in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38, but this time, they’re for Jesus. These lists of names indicate that the authors believed Genesis 1-11 was a historically accurate passage. After all, Matthew and Luke recorded these names to show that Jesus truly descended from the patriarchs.

Paul also treats the patriarchs as real, flesh-and-blood people. He built his doctrine of sin and salvation on the fact that Adam brought sin and death into the world (Romans 5:12-19). He confirmed Genesis 3 by saying that the serpent deceived Eve (2 Corinthians 11:3, 1 Timothy 2:13-14). And he took Genesis 1-2 literally when he affirmed that God created Adam first and then created Eve from Adam’s body (1 Corinthians 11:8-9).

Finally, Paul says people have observed the evidence of God’s existence since the creation of the world (see Romans 1:20). This seems to indicate that Paul believed mankind existed shortly after God created the earth, not billions of years later.

Why Does It Matter if We Read Genesis 1-11 Literally?
Some may think it doesn’t matter if you believe Genesis 1-11 is literal or figurative. But as we saw in this article, many of Scripture’s foundational doctrines—such as the doctrines of sin, salvation, and marriage—are based on a literal interpretation of Genesis.

#68
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Sidewalker
It was never intended to be read literally as a historical record.
The genealogies of the OT and NT suggest, at least in some instances, the texts were meant to be taken as an historical record.

Genealogy has always been central to Jewish sacred history, [...]
I'm confused as to what your view is. You've said the Bible is not meant to be historical and that it represents a sacred history. This is conflicting unless you are defining sacred history as something other than history.

Also, you've not addressed my other post regarding the OP. Is it wrong to take the Bible literally when Jesus says "If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it"?
#69
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Sidewalker
You are very clever,

Well, that is for others such as yourself maybe, to say, gasconading isn't really in my nature. But there are one or two here that just love to let you know their high intellectual status in the theological field.. Indeed, there is one member here, an absolute fascinating character that just cannot shut up about himself, his qualifications and high standing in the church and all that it entails. And his lifetimes dedication to memorising the bible and knowing it backwards and forwards since he was a child. Not to mention is high flying in the judiciary.; defence lawyer, if I remember correctly.
 But I feel that you are far too quick to make judgment about my intellect (or lack of) considering you have been here less than a month and only responded to me less than five times out of some 60 posts made by you, Sidewalker. Still, I suppose some believe themselves better judges of character than others? It must be a gift of sorts.....from God perhaps?


your atheist religion is strong,

I am not sure what one would call my position, to be honest. I just cannot accept the scriptures as they have come down and been passed on to us. I have over the years come to believe that there is another story just below the surface.  Do you not find them confusing, contradictory and ambiguous at times?  You have yourself pointed out the many translations over hundreds & thousands of years and by unknown hands too, that must have had some detrimental effect on these ancient scriptures. Not to mention the agenda of each individual author of those ancient times.

and you are devout, 

I have a devoted interest in many things. The scriptures being perhaps my favourite. I find it fascinating when read through one's own eyes rather than the eyes of others don't you? I have already mentioned that I believe at its basic, the bible OT to be a book of war and conquest. The bible NT to be the sketchy accounts of a power struggle between the Jewish sects and other factions in 1st century Palestine.



your intellectual analysis of ancient scripture is very humbling.  

Not sure why you would say that. I simply enjoy reading and studying theological matter. 

Nice talking to you, mate.



#70
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Shila

Excellent post from you there shila. Credit where it's due and all that.
#71
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
--> @Shila

Excellent post from you there shila. Credit where it's due and all that.
Thank you.

Not sure why you would say that. I simply enjoy reading and studying theological matter.
Was surprised to hear you like reading and studying theological matter.
Topic's author
#72
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Shila

Some may think it doesn’t matter if you believe Genesis 1-11 is literal or figurative. But as we saw in this article, many of Scripture’s foundational doctrines—such as the doctrines of sin, salvation, and marriage—are based on a literal interpretation of Genesis.
You are applying a very modern, and very western style of thinking to a people who thought very differently, they would not have been able to even comprehend that style of thinking.

The Book of Genesis is a foundational narrative to half of the world’s people; this would be completely unaccountable if it were merely a literal description of very unusual events that occurred in our distant past. A literal translation of Genesis makes it remote and irrelevant and quite frankly, doesn’t make sense. A literal translation could never account for its historical status as the western world’s foundational orienting myth for over three thousand years of mankind’s development, and to treat it as merely an historical account alters its original intent and completely obfuscates the profound truths which the symbolic narrative imparts. Genesis was never intended to be an historical description of events that actually happened; and the people who told it and heard it knew that. It is a myth that symbolically expresses mankind's codified subjective memory of real events that occurred in our distant past. It is not literally true; it's more profound than that, rather it is the embodiment of a deeper truth; it imparts important metaphysical postulates which have not lost their relevance.
 
The narrative form tells a story, and in order to do so it must tell it from a subjective point of view, that of the narrator.  It necessarily presupposes consciousness, the inner aspect of reality, and in so doing, it provides for an experiential point of view, placing the attributes of humanity back into the picture, the story becomes a human story with context, it relates to a coherent worldview and it is able to speak to values, meaning, and purpose.
 
In the narrative form consciousness is primary and an additional dimension of reality becomes available to the story teller, one that corresponds to an increase of depth that transcends science’s four dimensions of outer reality. The narrative adds a dimension that introduces to the element of perception the subjective connection to Man, it reintroduces consciousness into the world of objects.  This is why it has always been historically used by people of faith to provide interior unity and wholeness, to integrate the subjective and experiential elements of humanity to include values, meaning, and purpose, and provide a coherent and integrated worldview consistent with what it means to be human. In the vehicle of the narrative form the linear, rational, and objective human mind of the left brain is balanced by the nonlinear, synthesizing, and subjective mind of the image processing right brain, the R-Complex, the emotional limbic system, and the prefrontal cortex come into play. In the narrative form the ability of language to convey concepts advances, it is not a primitive form of language use, it is an advancement of language, a breaking of structure providing a dramatic change in the frame of reference that completes knowledge and makes it relevant to a human being.
 
That said, we can’t understand Genesis unless we understand what it is, it is indeed a myth, a rich repository of wisdom that was an oral tradition handed down through the ages through narrative story telling. Consequently, Genesis was not originally linguistic in its true nature and it was never meant to be read in a left-brained, linear or analytical fashion, which is to say, literally, as story telling it is meant to convey images that take place in the inner world of a conscious being. 
 
Genesis is narrative story telling through imagery, words are used to create the images, but the images are primary, not the words.  If it is perceived initially by the image processing functions of the brain rather than the linguistic functions, it becomes an interactive story for the whole brain that reads it. Both hemispheres are engaged in processing the narrative, which gives it the potential of promoting personal growth and spiritual awakening. Our neural ability to process new ideas is dependent upon first being able to process new imagery, new ways of seeing precede new ways of thinking. It’s the vivid imagery of Genesis that makes it so captivating, by viewing it through its imagery, we open up our brain’s interpretive mechanisms and learn to see in new ways, which is what has made it such a profoundly influential and foundational myth for the last three thousand years.  By understanding Genesis as mythology, we expand our awareness and enlarge our perception, activating generative forces at work in the brain and psyche. 
 
So what is it about?  It certainly isn’t about two individuals named Adam and Eve, it is about mankind, the Hebrew word “Adam” translates to the word “Mankind”, and this is explicitly confirmed in the first two verses of Genesis 5.  The word "Genesis" means "in the beginning", it relates the true nature of mankind and poignantly addresses the subject of “knowledge”, particularly speaking to the development of the “reflective knowledge” that distinguishes mankind from the rest of the animal kingdom, and it talks to the consequences of our having taken that humanizing step.
 
In so doing it establishes the basis for all that follows; it must be kept in mind that Genesis "prefaces" a book that quite explicitly states we are all "One" and consequently, we should not judge one another. Genesis teaches us to recognize the relationships inherent in wholeness, growth from incompleteness to wholeness is the real subject of Genesis. Genesis is an orienting myth that provides us with subjective meaning, it tells us why things are like they are and it positions us within the universe and speaks to our relevance in the grand scheme of things, relating our emotional reaction, establishing its significance, providing its meaning, and demanding a response. It conveys a deep understanding of the birth of consciousness and the subsequent transition from a life based on instinct to one involving self-awareness, explaining and relating the resultant requirements for conscious and moral decision-making, as well as responsible stewardship for Life and Earth, over which we have been "given dominion" because of the unique way we think.
 
The Genesis narrative is about the genesis of consciousness, the birth of something new, it is a new beginning that represents a new life, with new potential and new opportunities to move beyond all previous limitations and constraints, and along with that new life come the deepest truths of human essence.  It is therefore a necessary preface to the Bible that introduces the birth of “free will” and sets an explanatory stage for exploring its attendant consequences and associated moral responsibility.
 
Insisting on a literal interpretation of Genesis makes it a remote story about very unusual things that happened a very long time ago in a very strange place, it makes it completely irrelevant.  It makes it about external reality and denies the inner reality which it is about.  Its three-thousand-year prominence as the orienting cosmogonic myth for half of the world becomes completely inexplicable.
#73
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Sidewalker
The Genesis narrative is about the genesis of consciousness, the birth of something new, it is a new beginning that represents a new life, with new potential and new opportunities to move beyond all previous limitations and constraints, and along with that new life come the deepest truths of human essence.  It is therefore a necessary preface to the Bible that introduces the birth of “free will” and sets an explanatory stage for exploring its attendant consequences and associated moral responsibility.
All the more reason to take the Bible/Genesis literally. It applies to every aspect and deepest truths of human essence.

#74
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Shila
All the more reason to take the Bible/Genesis literally. It applies to every aspect and deepest truths of human essence.

Should it be taken literally at all times? Or just some of the time?

Why do you not start a thread on the subject, Shilla?
#75
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
ALL this important infomation given to us in this " scripture " like format 
I'm not  calling it CHILDISH  ,  but.
Well it isn't very adult like.

I feel like People don't seem to find this at all anoying. 
Do you guys wish the god thing just had it written in like a normal way ? 

Its not like he couldn't of right? 

Or Do gods just speak like this.
Because alllllllllll the other groups gods aka ( the fake made up gods ) speak /  relay  messages in this very same way. 

If a god did do a book in a straight up way you can see it burning out real real quick.  
It really looks like Religion Is a strict for profit business.  
From the original maker uppers 
To
A book writing team
To
Clubhouse owners and operator.


 
#76
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
--> @Shila
All the more reason to take the Bible/Genesis literally. It applies to every aspect and deepest truths of human essence.

Should it be taken literally at all times? Or just some of the time?

Why do you not start a thread on the subject, Shilla?
We have to recognize there are some 66 books that make up the Bible.
That includes songs, poetry, prayer, lamentations, parables etc. and they should be recognized as such.
But the Bible was written to be taken seriously and literally and not metaphorically.

I still have to earn the recognition before I start expanding on the subject.
#77
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Shila

Shila, wrote: All the more reason to take the Bible/Genesis literally. It applies to every aspect and deepest truths of human essence.

Should it be taken literally at all times? Or just some of the time?

But the Bible was written to be taken seriously and literally and not metaphorically.
So how does a dead person bury another dead person?


Why do you not start a thread on the subject, Shilla?

I still have to earn the recognition before I start expanding on the subject.
Recognition for what exactly?

#78
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
--> @Shila

Shila, wrote: All the more reason to take the Bible/Genesis literally. It applies to every aspect and deepest truths of human essence.

Should it be taken literally at all times? Or just some of the time?

But the Bible was written to be taken seriously and literally and not metaphorically.
So how does a dead person bury another dead person?
Some of the people of the world are dead to Christ. They do not see His beauty, nor do they hear His voice or desire to follow Him. Only His “sheep” will do those things (John 10:27). The people of the world are those whom the Savior describes here as the (spiritually) dead who should bury the (physically) dead. Let people, He says, who are not interested in My work, and who are “dead in sin” (Ephesians 2:1), take care of the dead. Your duty is now to follow Me.

Why do you not start a thread on the subject, Shilla?

I still have to earn the recognition before I start expanding on the subject.
Recognition for what exactly?
Recognition of my spirituality and scriptural leaning.
#79
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Shila
 @Shila

Shila, wrote: All the more reason to take the Bible/Genesis literally. It applies to every aspect and deepest truths of human essence.

Should it be taken literally at all times? Or just some of the time?

But the Bible was written to be taken seriously and literally and not metaphorically.
So how does a dead person bury another dead person?
Some of the people of the world are dead to Christ. They do not see His beauty, nor do they hear His voice or desire to follow Him. Only His “sheep” will do those things (John 10:27). The people of the world are those whom the Savior describes here as the (spiritually) dead who should bury the (physically) dead. Let people, He says, who are not interested in My work, and who are “dead in sin” (Ephesians 2:1), take care of the dead. Your duty is now to follow Me.

I agree. I have argued here many times that "let the dead bury the dead" Luke 9:60  is simply metaphorical. IE. anyone outside of Jesus' circle were simply called "the dead" and those that joined his cause were the "living". So, this is not a literal "dead" and not to be taken literally, is it?   So, are you still saying that

" the Bible was written to be taken seriously and literally#76



Why do you not start a thread on the subject, Shilla?

I still have to earn the recognition before I start expanding on the subject.
Recognition for what exactly?
Recognition of my spirituality and scriptural leaning.

And you are expecting this recognition to come from who?

#80
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
--> @Shila
 @Shila

Shila, wrote: All the more reason to take the Bible/Genesis literally. It applies to every aspect and deepest truths of human essence.

Should it be taken literally at all times? Or just some of the time?

But the Bible was written to be taken seriously and literally and not metaphorically.
So how does a dead person bury another dead person?
Some of the people of the world are dead to Christ. They do not see His beauty, nor do they hear His voice or desire to follow Him. Only His “sheep” will do those things (John 10:27). The people of the world are those whom the Savior describes here as the (spiritually) dead who should bury the (physically) dead. Let people, He says, who are not interested in My work, and who are “dead in sin” (Ephesians 2:1), take care of the dead. Your duty is now to follow Me.

I agree. I have argued here many times that "let the dead bury the dead" Luke 9:60  is simply metaphorical. IE. anyone outside of Jesus' circle were simply called "the dead" and those that joined his cause were the "living". So, this is not a literal "dead" and not to be taken literally, is it?   So, are you still saying that

" the Bible was written to be taken seriously and literally#76
Let the spiritually dead bury the dead should be taken literally.


Why do you not start a thread on the subject, Shilla?

I still have to earn the recognition before I start expanding on the subject.
Recognition for what exactly?
Recognition of my spirituality and scriptural leaning.

And you are expecting this recognition to come from who?
The spiritually alive.

Let the dead bury the dead.

#81
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Shila
--> @Shila
 @Shila

Shila, wrote: All the more reason to take the Bible/Genesis literally. It applies to every aspect and deepest truths of human essence.

Should it be taken literally at all times? Or just some of the time?

But the Bible was written to be taken seriously and literally and not metaphorically.
So how does a dead person bury another dead person?
Some of the people of the world are dead to Christ. They do not see His beauty, nor do they hear His voice or desire to follow Him. Only His “sheep” will do those things (John 10:27). The people of the world are those whom the Savior describes here as the (spiritually) dead who should bury the (physically) dead. Let people, He says, who are not interested in My work, and who are “dead in sin” (Ephesians 2:1), take care of the dead. Your duty is now to follow Me.

I agree. I have argued here many times that "let the dead bury the dead" Luke 9:60  is simply metaphorical. IE. anyone outside of Jesus' circle were simply called "the dead" and those that joined his cause were the "living". So, this is not a literal "dead" and not to be taken literally, is it?   So, are you still saying that

" the Bible was written to be taken seriously and literally#76
Let the spiritually dead bury the dead should be taken literally.

I agree simply because this is what the verse means. But the BIBLE and the actual words of JESUS do not refer LITERALY to the dead being spiritually dead, does it?  Lazarus in my opinion wasn't LITERALLY DEAD, it was a simple lapse of faith in the cause and the movement and he was only spiritually dead. Similarly, when one is referred to "having a demon" doesn't mean one to be literally possessed by a demonic spirit. Therefore, it is not to be taken literally. If it doesn't actually mean what it actually says, then it is metaphorical or simply what we today would call an idiom of the time.


Why do you not start a thread on the subject, Shilla?

I still have to earn the recognition before I start expanding on the subject.
Recognition for what exactly?
Recognition of my spirituality and scriptural leaning.

And you are expecting this recognition to come from who?
The spiritually alive.

You can correct me if I am wrong, but I recognise that you believe in God and the bible and have your own understanding of it.  And I am sure there are a few more here that will say the same. Does this make me "spiritually alive" in your eyes?
 You appear to be saying that you would only start a thread as long as everyone agrees with you and that we should somehow appreciate your own understanding and belief in scripture to be superior.


The spiritually alive.

Will you define what you mean by "spiritually alive"?

#82
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
> @Shila
--> @Shila
 @Shila

Shila, wrote: All the more reason to take the Bible/Genesis literally. It applies to every aspect and deepest truths of human essence.

Should it be taken literally at all times? Or just some of the time?

But the Bible was written to be taken seriously and literally and not metaphorically.
So how does a dead person bury another dead person?
Some of the people of the world are dead to Christ. They do not see His beauty, nor do they hear His voice or desire to follow Him. Only His “sheep” will do those things (John 10:27). The people of the world are those whom the Savior describes here as the (spiritually) dead who should bury the (physically) dead. Let people, He says, who are not interested in My work, and who are “dead in sin” (Ephesians 2:1), take care of the dead. Your duty is now to follow Me.

I agree. I have argued here many times that "let the dead bury the dead" Luke 9:60  is simply metaphorical. IE. anyone outside of Jesus' circle were simply called "the dead" and those that joined his cause were the "living". So, this is not a literal "dead" and not to be taken literally, is it?   So, are you still saying that

" the Bible was written to be taken seriously and literally#76
Let the spiritually dead bury the dead should be taken literally.

I agree simply because this is what the verse means. But the BIBLE and the actual words of JESUS do not refer LITERALY to the dead being spiritually dead, does it?  Lazarus in my opinion wasn't LITERALLY DEAD, it was a simple lapse of faith in the cause and the movement and he was only spiritually dead. Similarly, when one is referred to "having a demon" doesn't mean one to be literally possessed by a demonic spirit. Therefore, it is not to be taken literally. If it doesn't actually mean what it actually says, then it is metaphorical or simply what we today would call an idiom of the time.
The spiritual realm is just as real as the physical realm. So death in either realm should be taken literally.


Why do you not start a thread on the subject, Shilla?

I still have to earn the recognition before I start expanding on the subject.
Recognition for what exactly?
Recognition of my spirituality and scriptural leaning.

And you are expecting this recognition to come from who?
The spiritually alive.

You can correct me if I am wrong, but I recognise that you believe in God and the bible and have your own understanding of it.  And I am sure there are a few more here that will say the same. Does this make me "spiritually alive" in your eyes?
 You appear to be saying that you would only start a thread as long as everyone agrees with you and that we should somehow appreciate your own understanding and belief in scripture to be superior.


The spiritually alive.

Will you define what you mean by "spiritually alive"?
That is literally the opposite of spiritually dead.
#83
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Shila



You are simply ignoring what I have written.

Jesus didn't once utter the words let the SPIRITUAL dead bury the dead, now did he.

Luke 9:60

King James Version


60 Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.

The story is metaphorical, there -by proving the bible is not, as you insist,   to be taken literally at all times. Here is an example from scripture that should prove my point.

The wayward son.

Luke 15:24  " For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry."

 So we see, the son was neither literally lost nor literally dead, was he? These are simple idioms and not to be taken literal as you keep insisting. The son simply defied his father, went off to explore the world outside the tent and apparently found it to be shite so returned home full of apologies.









#84
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
--> @Shila



You are simply ignoring what I have written.

Jesus didn't once utter the words let the SPIRITUAL dead bury the dead, now did he.

Luke 9:60

King James Version


60 Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.

The story is metaphorical, there -by proving the bible is not, as you insist,   to be taken literally at all times. Here is an example from scripture that should prove my point.

The wayward son.

Luke 15:24  " For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry."

 So we see, the son was neither literally lost nor literally dead, was he? These are simple idioms and not to be taken literal as you keep insisting. The son simply defied his father, went off to explore the world outside the tent and apparently found it to be shite so returned home full of apologies
How can spiritually dead be metaphorical when the Bible speaks about it literally?
#85
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Shila
-> @Shila



You are simply ignoring what I have written.

Jesus didn't once utter the words let the SPIRITUAL dead bury the dead, now did he.

Luke 9:60

King James Version


60 Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.

The story is metaphorical, there -by proving the bible is not, as you insist,   to be taken literally at all times. Here is an example from scripture that should prove my point.

The wayward son.

Luke 15:24  " For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry."

 So we see, the son was neither literally lost nor literally dead, was he? These are simple idioms and not to be taken literal as you keep insisting. The son simply defied his father, went off to explore the world outside the tent and apparently found it to be shite so returned home full of apologies
How can spiritually dead be metaphorical when the Bible speaks about it literally?

But the BIBLE doesn't actually and literally state "spiritual dead"   now does it!?  I have agreed that the MEANING is referring to those not in his circle or those that didn't believe him were seen to be dead as in the case of Lazarus. Lazarus had simply lost faith in the cause and wanted out until Jesus went and spoke with him.... after lingering down by the river for a few extra days after hearing the sad news of the "death" of his friend. He certainly didn't rush back to "resurrect" the disciple he loved so much, did he? 

 I feel the frustration that Jesus must have felt when his thicko disciples didn't have a clue about what he was trying to convey to them. But in this instance and in your case, you just cannot admit that the bible is full of metaphor, figurative speaking, symbolism, allegory, parables and idioms.  Not to mention local and colloquial terms of phrase, of which there are many examples in THE BIBLE! 

When Jesus warned his circle of followers of “the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees,” they thought he was speaking of literal bread rather than of their teachings. Jesus said he was "the bread of life" but he wasn't a loaf, was he? Jesus said "“I am the door of the sheep” but he wasn't a literal door and those he was addressing were not literal sheep. Jesus would sometimes admit he was speaking in parable at other times he didn't.

“But now, O Lord, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; ". Are you literal clay and is god a literal simple potter?
The bible says of itself “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path". But is it not literally a lamp or is it literally sharp.

It still amazes me that in the 21st century that there are people that still believe that Jesus LITERALLY turned water into wine and literally walked on water.  You are in for a very hard time trying to understand what is going on in the scriptures if your foundation is that the bible is LITERALLY true in every word and way.
I could go on, but I feel I am wasting both our time.... especially my own.







#86
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
--> @Shila
-> @Shila



You are simply ignoring what I have written.

Jesus didn't once utter the words let the SPIRITUAL dead bury the dead, now did he.

Luke 9:60

King James Version


60 Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.

The story is metaphorical, there -by proving the bible is not, as you insist,   to be taken literally at all times. Here is an example from scripture that should prove my point.

The wayward son.

Luke 15:24  " For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry."

 So we see, the son was neither literally lost nor literally dead, was he? These are simple idioms and not to be taken literal as you keep insisting. The son simply defied his father, went off to explore the world outside the tent and apparently found it to be shite so returned home full of apologies
How can spiritually dead be metaphorical when the Bible speaks about it literally?

But the BIBLE doesn't actually and literally state "spiritual dead"   now does it!?  I have agreed that the MEANING is referring to those not in his circle or those that didn't believe him were seen to be dead as in the case of Lazarus. Lazarus had simply lost faith in the cause and wanted out until Jesus went and spoke with him.... after lingering down by the river for a few extra days after hearing the sad news of the "death" of his friend. He certainly didn't rush back to "resurrect" the disciple he loved so much, did he? 

 

What the Bible says about Spiritually Dead

John 3:3

John 3:3 begins to show the profound importance of the born-again instruction by the fact that this doctrine is the subject of the very first of Jesus' discourses recorded by John. It is as if everything regarding our spiritual future begins and proceeds from this point. Interestingly, this discourse does not cover how men should live but how men are made alive spiritually.

In Ephesians 2:1-6, the apostle Paul reveals a major detail of why a spiritual birth is necessary:

And You He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others. But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.

Twice, Paul says in these six verses that we "were dead"—not physically dead but spiritually dead. An individual cannot conduct his life before he is born, nor can a dead person direct his steps and regulate his life. Clearly, God perceives a person as spiritually dead before he is born again. Being born again thus begins a convert's progress toward his transformation into Christ's image and living in the Kingdom of God for all eternity.

Interestingly, Romans 4:17 states that "God . . . gives life to the dead." Being born again is also likened to a resurrection, but nowhere does the Bible show resurrected people as begotten as a fetus confined to a womb. Rather, Scripture shows the converted as adults freed from spiritual death and at liberty to move about, live life, make choices, and interact with others, putting their new spiritual life to practical use.

Luke 9:60 confirms Paul's declaration in a statement by Jesus that illustrates how God perceives the overwhelming majority of people on earth. Jesus commands the man who said he would follow Him but first wanted to bury his dead father, "Let the dead bury the dead." He obviously means, "Let those yet physically alive but spiritually dead bury one of their spiritually—and now physically—dead companions." Jesus thus confirms that God perceives those not yet truly Christian as spiritually dead and in need of spiritual resurrection to spiritual life.

Psalm 115:17 adds to this: "The dead do not praise the LORD, nor any who go down into silence." Though this statement obviously applies primarily to the physically dead, it also suggests that the spiritually dead cannot praise God with true spirituality. Jesus' teaching on being born again speaks of a new birth, a new beginning from a state of spiritual death imposed on us because of our sins. Thus, a person cannot begin spiritual life and truly praise God as a Christian until he is first born spiritually. Plainly, discerning figurative language is vital to understanding this doctrine.

It was in this context that Jesus said. Let the dead bury the dead. Where the spiritually dead bury the physically dead.







#87
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Shila
I am not arguing about what the bible states about spiritual death.  I am arguing the fact that you have stated that the bible should be taken literal and not metaphorically. HERE>>>#73 What's more, you have even recognised and admitted that Jesus spoke in parables. HERE>>#76 but then amazingly, and in the same sentence you immediately follow that up with this;

"But the Bible was written to be taken seriously and literally and not metaphorically".

A parable is simply short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude, or a principle usually used only as an instructive example. 



#88
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
--> @Shila
I am not arguing about what the bible states about spiritual death.  I am arguing the fact that you have stated that the bible should be taken literal and not metaphorically. HERE>>>#73 What's more, you have even recognised and admitted that Jesus spoke in parables. HERE>>#76 but then amazingly, and in the same sentence you immediately follow that up with this;

"But the Bible was written to be taken seriously and literally and not metaphorically". 

A parable is simply short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude, or a principle usually used only as an instructive example. 
The parables had an underlying message. That message had to be taken literally.

Even the apocalyptic vision of Jesus about the future had to be taken literally. Or why would Jesus share it.
Topic's author
#89
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Shila
Both read the Bible day and night, but you read black where I read white. - William Blake
#90
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Again.
Great scrip trans guys. 

It is easy to see why we've currently welllll over one billion Christians in the. 
▪○°•¤▪○°¤¤▪○°¤¤▪○°•▪○°¤▪○☆☆☆☆☆     TOP   10    SCRIPTURE TRANSLATING    ☆☆☆☆☆ ▪○●°•¤▪○●°•¤▪○●••¤●●°¤▪○●•¤  
That has ever been. 

Script Masters. 
The lot of you.