-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
E
This was likely Gerald Ford in 1974: Government big enough... Not that it really matters, unless an appeal is being made specifically to Thomas Jefferson's authority, as if another president wouldn't do.
Instead of thinking of what people do about scripture, isn’t really about what is God telling us with scripture? God is truth, so of course it is literal. God is spirit, so of course it is spiritual. Someone put the human definition that I think matches it, they said there is dualism in realism.
Everything we do has a spiritual counterpart. The truth, for instance, has to do with what is true both physically and spiritually. That is why God gave rituals to Hebrews to teach to physically live the spiritual truths. If they separated the two, so rituals had no spiritual meaning to them, the ritual was empty. We are to understand on both levels.
Everything we do has a spiritual counterpart. The truth, for instance, has to do with what is true both physically and spiritually. That is why God gave rituals to Hebrews to teach to physically live the spiritual truths. If they separated the two, so rituals had no spiritual meaning to them, the ritual was empty. We are to understand on both levels.
T
Fixed!!!! 
Part of that includes purposely twisting the words of your neighbor to be deceitful and dishonest.
I suppose I should be honored, since you do the same thing to God's Word that you did to my words. But really, to pull a sophomoric prank like that, and then have the audacity to claim moral high ground?
Really?
You should be ashamed. You probably aren't, but you should be. And I forgive you anyway.
T
Are you referring to a specific event? I'm not sure what you're talking about.
For one thing, I don't know any place that God ever left, so I'm not sure how anyone, Democrat or Republican, could "put God back in" a place where God never left.
Secondly, the Democrats barely have enough power to get their guy re-elected. You think they have the power to tell God where to go?
Finally, which "liberals" would this be that were mad at the Democrats?
See, nothing of what you said makes any sense.
For one thing, I don't know any place that God ever left, so I'm not sure how anyone, Democrat or Republican, could "put God back in" a place where God never left.
Secondly, the Democrats barely have enough power to get their guy re-elected. You think they have the power to tell God where to go?
Finally, which "liberals" would this be that were mad at the Democrats?
See, nothing of what you said makes any sense.
I wonder how your mind is seeing what I am seeing! I think that when God says something happened, it literally happened. I also think that each physical happening has a spiritual meaning in God’s eyes.
I think this has a deep affect on our spiritual life. Can we have love within us, can we live with only love in our hearts without actions following? God tells us that we can perform actions (rituals) for the wrong reasons and it amounts to nothing. But God also tells us that faith without actions is also lacking.
I think this has a deep affect on our spiritual life. Can we have love within us, can we live with only love in our hearts without actions following? God tells us that we can perform actions (rituals) for the wrong reasons and it amounts to nothing. But God also tells us that faith without actions is also lacking.
T
So you think that when Jesus said, "I am a vine, and you are the branches," he literally became a plant?
Or are you saying, perhaps, that Jesus can use symbolic language, but His Father is not allowed to?
I wonder how you don't see this. Why wouldn't God use symbolic language? When the most obvious interpretation is not literal, why try to twist it to make it literal, just so that you can claim that your God has no imagination? Why would you even want to worship a god who has no imagination? I just don't get it. And the more you and others try to insist on this literal interpretation, the less sense it makes. You keep arguing that 2+2=5, and all your evidence just shows that you are wrong. I really want to understand your view, but I just don't get it.
Or are you saying, perhaps, that Jesus can use symbolic language, but His Father is not allowed to?
I wonder how you don't see this. Why wouldn't God use symbolic language? When the most obvious interpretation is not literal, why try to twist it to make it literal, just so that you can claim that your God has no imagination? Why would you even want to worship a god who has no imagination? I just don't get it. And the more you and others try to insist on this literal interpretation, the less sense it makes. You keep arguing that 2+2=5, and all your evidence just shows that you are wrong. I really want to understand your view, but I just don't get it.
T
I present to the rest of the board Exhibit B.
Which one of us has shown more Christ-like behavior in this?
People like you are the reason Christianity is shrinking in numbers around the globe. And I know this, because I ask my non-Christian friends why they don't believe, and a lot of them say because it's the behavior you have just exhibited.
Is that any way to share the good news? Turn people away from the Gospel? I may disgust you, but at least I don't disgust Jesus. You have that honor.
Which one of us has shown more Christ-like behavior in this?
People like you are the reason Christianity is shrinking in numbers around the globe. And I know this, because I ask my non-Christian friends why they don't believe, and a lot of them say because it's the behavior you have just exhibited.
Is that any way to share the good news? Turn people away from the Gospel? I may disgust you, but at least I don't disgust Jesus. You have that honor.
A
It should be noted, however, that it was not just the Pharisees and the Sadducees that held to the oral traditions. All Jews accepted the Talmudic teachings, including Jesus.
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
unbelievable!!!!!
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
unbelievable!!!!!
T
Ack! You're right. I can't believe I wrote that. DUH!
What I meant was that all Jews at the time of Jesus, including Jesus himself, accepted the oral traditions and teachings of the TANAKh. This oral tradition is what became the Talmudic teachings over the next several centuries. I'm so sorry for this horrible blunder. Thank you for pointing it out to me, and giving me a chance to correct myself.
:: face-palm ::
What I meant was that all Jews at the time of Jesus, including Jesus himself, accepted the oral traditions and teachings of the TANAKh. This oral tradition is what became the Talmudic teachings over the next several centuries. I'm so sorry for this horrible blunder. Thank you for pointing it out to me, and giving me a chance to correct myself.
:: face-palm ::
M
Grunge....do you think any of the above is allegorical? I don't ask this to trap you. I agree that huge portions of Scripture are allegorical. But the apostles creed is a very early statement of faith.....do you think that the virgin birth for example was allegorical....or the suffering under Pilate or the ascension?
Also do you believe the synoptic gospels are allegories......or are they standard history?
T
This is an excellent question, Meecha, and I thank you for being direct and honest in an open and respectful way. I am glad there are people like you who can disagree without being disrespectful.
Let me answer your questions one at a time.
Second clause of the creed:
I believe that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born (though unlike my Roman Catholic sisters and brothers, I'm not convinced she stayed that way for the rest of her life). I'm not sure the Christmas narrative is exactly as it says in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke: the shepherds and angels may be historical, but I think the symbolic meanings of those stories are way better than the literal ones. Like I said, they may be historical. I don't know anything that would contradict them happening exactly the way it's written. It's just that they read to me more like fiction than like history, and the fantastical reading, at least to me, is far more fulfilling, as a Christian, than a historical reading. JMHO.
I don't know of any place in Scripture where it says Jesus "descended into hell." This is the one place where I might shy away from a "literal" reading of the Creeds. The word "descend" implies a direction downward, as if hell were an actual, physical place that exists somewhere beneath the earth's crust. We know that isn't true. I'm not saying that hell isn't real. (Anyone who's ever seen a loved one die, or fought in combat, or any number of human experiences, knows that hell is real.) Hell is real, but it isn't a physical place just beneath the earth's surface. Similarly, heaven is not in space. It, too, is very real, and I know you and I will both be there some day, but it is not in the sky, with clouds and harps and golden gates. That stuff isn't literal. Do you understand the distinction?
So here's where I draw the line: Yes, Jesus was literally brought to trial under Pontius Pilate. Yes, Jesus was crucified on a cross, died, and was laid in a literal tomb. Yes, Jesus went to hell. Was it a physical, literal descent, like in an elevator? No. It was a "metaphysical" descent; a spiritual one. He went to a real hell, but it wasn't literally "down." Is that precise enough?
And then, the same with the heaven. Although the disciples saw him ascend literally, his final destination is not in the sky somewhere, that we can fly to if we just get a good rocket ship. Also, "is seated at," in the Latin moreso than in English, does not mean a literal seating arrangement, like, you imagine a King seated at a throne, and a Prince next to him. Again, it's more metaphysical than that. The Latin "ad dexteram" has a fuller meaning than just sitting in the next chair like you would at a dinner party, but encompasses stature, place in the order of the universe. So, not literal -- way more than literal, if that makes sense.
Third clause of the creed:
As for the Spirit, I'm not sure if the word "literal" can even be applied. I mean, isn't the Spirit, by it's very nature, Spiritual rather than literal?
First clause of the creed:
Father. What is a literal Father? The human male who is your direct descendant. Is God a literal Father, genetically, as it were? God is "our Father," but clearly, we use that name in a spiritual way. We are speaking of the relationship, not biology or chemistry. So again, I'm not sure "literal" is the proper term there. Yes, God really is our Father. But of course that's not literal. My literal father is a man who lives in the midwest, plays the violin, tells really bad jokes, and is really good at math. The Lord is my heavenly Father, not my literal Father.
As for the synoptic gospels, I think it's clear that there absolutely was someone by the name of Jesus who was truly Son of God and Son of Man. He healed the sick, he preached a Gospel that was new and exciting. Most of the things attributed to him in those gospels probably happened to some extent, but I'm sure there are liberties taken. The fact that there are slight variations from one Gospel to another makes it clear that none of them are quite 100% literal. Any judge will tell you an eye-witness is one of the least reliable sources; they see everything through the filter of their own preconceptions. I don't think that makes them wrong; on the contrary, it's more "right," because it gives us a human portal for the divine.
But I think that if we spend too much time getting caught up in what's "right" or "wrong" in the gospels -- what actually happened and what is "made up" by the evangelist -- we miss the point. The point of the Gospels is that God loves us in such a way that he sent his only begotten son to redeem a fallen world. That's mighty powerful. And whether that son fed 5,000 people or 10,000 people or only 1,000 people with a couple of fishes and some moldy bread doesn't really change who HE is, does it? Why get caught up in the specifics? Isn't it better to shrug our shoulders, say it doesn't matter if the evangelists weren't so good at math, and just PRAISE the LORD!
Anyway, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
Let me answer your questions one at a time.
Second clause of the creed:
I believe that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born (though unlike my Roman Catholic sisters and brothers, I'm not convinced she stayed that way for the rest of her life). I'm not sure the Christmas narrative is exactly as it says in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke: the shepherds and angels may be historical, but I think the symbolic meanings of those stories are way better than the literal ones. Like I said, they may be historical. I don't know anything that would contradict them happening exactly the way it's written. It's just that they read to me more like fiction than like history, and the fantastical reading, at least to me, is far more fulfilling, as a Christian, than a historical reading. JMHO.
I don't know of any place in Scripture where it says Jesus "descended into hell." This is the one place where I might shy away from a "literal" reading of the Creeds. The word "descend" implies a direction downward, as if hell were an actual, physical place that exists somewhere beneath the earth's crust. We know that isn't true. I'm not saying that hell isn't real. (Anyone who's ever seen a loved one die, or fought in combat, or any number of human experiences, knows that hell is real.) Hell is real, but it isn't a physical place just beneath the earth's surface. Similarly, heaven is not in space. It, too, is very real, and I know you and I will both be there some day, but it is not in the sky, with clouds and harps and golden gates. That stuff isn't literal. Do you understand the distinction?
So here's where I draw the line: Yes, Jesus was literally brought to trial under Pontius Pilate. Yes, Jesus was crucified on a cross, died, and was laid in a literal tomb. Yes, Jesus went to hell. Was it a physical, literal descent, like in an elevator? No. It was a "metaphysical" descent; a spiritual one. He went to a real hell, but it wasn't literally "down." Is that precise enough?
And then, the same with the heaven. Although the disciples saw him ascend literally, his final destination is not in the sky somewhere, that we can fly to if we just get a good rocket ship. Also, "is seated at," in the Latin moreso than in English, does not mean a literal seating arrangement, like, you imagine a King seated at a throne, and a Prince next to him. Again, it's more metaphysical than that. The Latin "ad dexteram" has a fuller meaning than just sitting in the next chair like you would at a dinner party, but encompasses stature, place in the order of the universe. So, not literal -- way more than literal, if that makes sense.
Third clause of the creed:
As for the Spirit, I'm not sure if the word "literal" can even be applied. I mean, isn't the Spirit, by it's very nature, Spiritual rather than literal?
First clause of the creed:
Father. What is a literal Father? The human male who is your direct descendant. Is God a literal Father, genetically, as it were? God is "our Father," but clearly, we use that name in a spiritual way. We are speaking of the relationship, not biology or chemistry. So again, I'm not sure "literal" is the proper term there. Yes, God really is our Father. But of course that's not literal. My literal father is a man who lives in the midwest, plays the violin, tells really bad jokes, and is really good at math. The Lord is my heavenly Father, not my literal Father.
As for the synoptic gospels, I think it's clear that there absolutely was someone by the name of Jesus who was truly Son of God and Son of Man. He healed the sick, he preached a Gospel that was new and exciting. Most of the things attributed to him in those gospels probably happened to some extent, but I'm sure there are liberties taken. The fact that there are slight variations from one Gospel to another makes it clear that none of them are quite 100% literal. Any judge will tell you an eye-witness is one of the least reliable sources; they see everything through the filter of their own preconceptions. I don't think that makes them wrong; on the contrary, it's more "right," because it gives us a human portal for the divine.
But I think that if we spend too much time getting caught up in what's "right" or "wrong" in the gospels -- what actually happened and what is "made up" by the evangelist -- we miss the point. The point of the Gospels is that God loves us in such a way that he sent his only begotten son to redeem a fallen world. That's mighty powerful. And whether that son fed 5,000 people or 10,000 people or only 1,000 people with a couple of fishes and some moldy bread doesn't really change who HE is, does it? Why get caught up in the specifics? Isn't it better to shrug our shoulders, say it doesn't matter if the evangelists weren't so good at math, and just PRAISE the LORD!
Anyway, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
R
the bible is not allegorical...allegorical interpretation wasn't even invented until -after- the old testament was written...and it was invented by pagan greek philosophers who wanted to show that their notions could be derived from the important writings of homer and others...
ancient cultures took their creation stories literally...yet the biblical creation story is the only case where you have a school of thought that insists on interpreting it figuratively...
anyway...what would have been the point of the genesis creation account including so much of what would essentially be meaningless fictional detail just to say something that could have more easily been said in a few words?
ancient cultures took their creation stories literally...yet the biblical creation story is the only case where you have a school of thought that insists on interpreting it figuratively...
anyway...what would have been the point of the genesis creation account including so much of what would essentially be meaningless fictional detail just to say something that could have more easily been said in a few words?
T
Ummm ... this is just plain wrong.
There are dozens of writings concurrent with the Old Testament that are allegorical. Ancient China and India had deeply spiritual writings thousands of years ago, and there is no reason to believe that some of those influences didn't make it as far west as Mesopotamia.
I'm not sure where you got the above idea, if this was something that was taught to you in a lecture, or you read it in a book, or what, but it is absolutely and categorically wrong. I'm really sorry to be the one to break it to you, but you've been lied to.
Fascinating. Allegory was "invented" by Greek Philosophers who were trying to hearken back to the days of Homer?
Have you ever read Homer? Do yourself a favor: sit down and read Odysseus. You don't even have to read it in the original language. There are lots of excellent translations out there. Read it, and tell me that that isn't allegory. That alone should prove to you that this nut-case who is trying to tell you that allegorical writing didn't come until after that is snorting some strange substance. And, by the way, anything else this "teacher" has told you should also be questioned thoroughly. I wouldn't trust anything that came from that source.
huh-a-wha?!?!?
You're trying to tell me (and anyone else on this board) that Italian citizens today actually believe the Roman Myths are true? That Olav, my friend from Olso, Norway, actually assumes that the Norse gods are all literal?
If anything, the Biblical creation story is the only one where you have anyone trying to insist on taking it literally still today.
Come on, Rachel. I've seen you in other boards, and you're WAY too intelligent for this. It sounds to me like someone you respect a lot and look up to has really been pulling the wool over those lamb-eyes of yours. Hon, think. Do you know anyone who believes that the stars come out at night because Artemis shoots his arrow into the night sky? Literally?
That there may have been ancients, 4-6 thousand years ago, who read these myths and thought they were true, that is correct. There were ancient Hebrews who thought the Creation story was literal, just as there were ancient civilizations who believed all of their mythical stories. We know there were, because we have records of these arguments, 4-6 thousand years ago, between scholars who took them literally and scholars who took them allegorically. A little less than two thousand years ago, the "myth" school won out, and the prevailing interpretation ever since then (at least until the late 1800s) was allegorical.
There are dozens of writings concurrent with the Old Testament that are allegorical. Ancient China and India had deeply spiritual writings thousands of years ago, and there is no reason to believe that some of those influences didn't make it as far west as Mesopotamia.
I'm not sure where you got the above idea, if this was something that was taught to you in a lecture, or you read it in a book, or what, but it is absolutely and categorically wrong. I'm really sorry to be the one to break it to you, but you've been lied to.
Fascinating. Allegory was "invented" by Greek Philosophers who were trying to hearken back to the days of Homer?
Have you ever read Homer? Do yourself a favor: sit down and read Odysseus. You don't even have to read it in the original language. There are lots of excellent translations out there. Read it, and tell me that that isn't allegory. That alone should prove to you that this nut-case who is trying to tell you that allegorical writing didn't come until after that is snorting some strange substance. And, by the way, anything else this "teacher" has told you should also be questioned thoroughly. I wouldn't trust anything that came from that source.
huh-a-wha?!?!?
You're trying to tell me (and anyone else on this board) that Italian citizens today actually believe the Roman Myths are true? That Olav, my friend from Olso, Norway, actually assumes that the Norse gods are all literal?
If anything, the Biblical creation story is the only one where you have anyone trying to insist on taking it literally still today.
Come on, Rachel. I've seen you in other boards, and you're WAY too intelligent for this. It sounds to me like someone you respect a lot and look up to has really been pulling the wool over those lamb-eyes of yours. Hon, think. Do you know anyone who believes that the stars come out at night because Artemis shoots his arrow into the night sky? Literally?
That there may have been ancients, 4-6 thousand years ago, who read these myths and thought they were true, that is correct. There were ancient Hebrews who thought the Creation story was literal, just as there were ancient civilizations who believed all of their mythical stories. We know there were, because we have records of these arguments, 4-6 thousand years ago, between scholars who took them literally and scholars who took them allegorically. A little less than two thousand years ago, the "myth" school won out, and the prevailing interpretation ever since then (at least until the late 1800s) was allegorical.
M
thanks grunge...i could nit pick but I can essentially live with this. I believe the Bible to be inerrant but I do not believe in a concept that says something like "The Bible is literally true"......so I believe the world to be created by God in 7 days and I tend towards a creationist young earth view but I would not hang my hat on specifics beyond that. Here are two statements from the gospels that give me a basis for a general approach
Luke's opening statement states that there were already gospel accounts in existence at the time of his writing and that Luke intends to put the "facts" into a chronological order so that "Theophilus" can be sure of the things he has already heard.....implying perhaps that "theophilus" needs the facts arranged in a certain way.
John's closing statement ( theologically speaking) states that his gospel is not a complete account of all that Jesus did but contains the essential ingredients to draw it's hearers to the key point....that they may have life beyond death.
agree
agree
I think "hell" is just the place of death but I believe Jesus literally died and was literally raised to life.....I don't think his body transported to another place but in some sense which I don't understand he "suffered" out of the presence of the Father.
absolutely....actually the right hand is the place of all power and authority....Jesus receives this from the Father at His ascension and now rules from Heaven..
agree
Our Heavenly father is more than our earthly father....but yes point taken
i would have a problem with the statement "liberties were taken" ....you would have to rephrase that one
I don't find the variations a problem at all....to me they add to the authenticity of the account. I read 4 or 5 different accounts of the same football match every weekend and see variations but having watched the game myself I see that different journalists pick up on different aspects. I'm not sure about judges and eye witness statements......I would have thought eye witnesses were the most important witnesses in any case.
My mother died of a drug od in 1967. I remember the morning I found her like it was yesterday. I have always remembered it as a Sat morning and that I found out that she had died on the Tuesday. Now I just checked that on a google search....I typed in July 10 1967 ( the day on the death certificate) ....and found out that it was the Monday as I have always remembered it. I can also remember other things about that summer very clearly but I can remember very little of the following 2 summers. The point is that big events remain with you....the ressurection of Jesus enabled the early Christians to stand before Nero and tell him that Jesus ..and not Nero ...was Lord. They had the certainty that Luke wanted for Theophilus
Luke's opening statement states that there were already gospel accounts in existence at the time of his writing and that Luke intends to put the "facts" into a chronological order so that "Theophilus" can be sure of the things he has already heard.....implying perhaps that "theophilus" needs the facts arranged in a certain way.
John's closing statement ( theologically speaking) states that his gospel is not a complete account of all that Jesus did but contains the essential ingredients to draw it's hearers to the key point....that they may have life beyond death.
agree
agree
I think "hell" is just the place of death but I believe Jesus literally died and was literally raised to life.....I don't think his body transported to another place but in some sense which I don't understand he "suffered" out of the presence of the Father.
absolutely....actually the right hand is the place of all power and authority....Jesus receives this from the Father at His ascension and now rules from Heaven..
agree
Our Heavenly father is more than our earthly father....but yes point taken
i would have a problem with the statement "liberties were taken" ....you would have to rephrase that one
I don't find the variations a problem at all....to me they add to the authenticity of the account. I read 4 or 5 different accounts of the same football match every weekend and see variations but having watched the game myself I see that different journalists pick up on different aspects. I'm not sure about judges and eye witness statements......I would have thought eye witnesses were the most important witnesses in any case.
My mother died of a drug od in 1967. I remember the morning I found her like it was yesterday. I have always remembered it as a Sat morning and that I found out that she had died on the Tuesday. Now I just checked that on a google search....I typed in July 10 1967 ( the day on the death certificate) ....and found out that it was the Monday as I have always remembered it. I can also remember other things about that summer very clearly but I can remember very little of the following 2 summers. The point is that big events remain with you....the ressurection of Jesus enabled the early Christians to stand before Nero and tell him that Jesus ..and not Nero ...was Lord. They had the certainty that Luke wanted for Theophilus