Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Whopper lets see then if Gen.1:26-27 has happened or is going to happen. If is going to happen then it is a prophesy correct?
26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
When God said let us make man in our image and likeness was He looking at a lump of clay or was He looking at a biologically living man?
God does not say lets take this lump of clay and make it in our image and likeness, but He does say let us make man (a living biological being) in our image and likeness.
Man was a biological being that did not have the life of Christ within him. Mans life at this time was a life much like any other beast of the field God had made.
Gen.2 is the start of the fulfillment of the prophesy given in Gen.1:26-27
This can be seen in that Paul tells us in 1Co.15 that the first man Adam was made a living soul, a natural man of the earth earthy and we right know bare this same image.
Obviously that which is natural of the earth earthy is NOT the image and likeness of God.
But there is one who is the image and likeness of God and that is Jesus Christ and Paul tells us that as we have borne the IMAGE of the earthy we shall also bear the IMAGE of the heavenly.
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. 48As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. 49And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
Thus to be made in the image and likeness of God is to bare the IMAGE of the heavenly, not the earthly. Thus Gen.1:26-27 MUST indeed be a prophesy of what we will become in Christ.
Hmm. That's interesting.
One problem I see with all that is the utter absence of anything referring to "souls", "Christ", "Clay", and "prophecy" in Genesis 1. I would add, additionally, that Genesis 1 was most likely composed after Genesis 2-3. Just because they are arranged in their current order does not imply the same order of composition.
A closer inspection of the two Creative Accounts will show their unrelatedness. When one starts putting them both in the same time-line is when contradictions start popping up. The point - in a previous post - was that this is easily avoided by realizing the composite nature of the composition of the Pentateuch. Check out the Documentary Hypothesis if you have time, or are willing.
The concept of "God's image" has been a puzzling one, with many explanations having been offered. It's not clear in the text, and the verbal plurality of the subject (God or Gods: "Let US make") has been an additional puzzle, one that has been explained by various scholars as referring to the Divine Council - which had been made up of the "Sons of God". Perhaps that can be added to the current dicussion on the "Son" of God that is going on. I know the traditional, Fundamentalist Christian response is that it was the Trinity - but that idea is missing pre-1st Century AD, and the author was probably not envisioning an idea that was yet to manifest itself.
Determining what is allegory or not is what has led to thousands of different flavours of Christianity....each one of them convinced that THEY have determined what is allegory and what isn't. Obviously, the way in which you guys are determining what is allegory, metaphor and truth.... just isn't working...
Good post!
The Alexandrine school was notorious for taking "difficult" passages (those passages that conflicted with the then-growing ideas of science and nature posited by the Greeks) and turning them into allegories. Christianity owes a great debt to Alexandria for this (or a curse against Alexandria).
Rafius is correct - allegory has produced many Christianities, and no one group has the secret key. Personally, whether I believe what the text says or not - I prefer to let the text say what it is saying, rather than allegorizing it into a meaning that isn't present. Surely God's actions are firm enough to not need the aid of allegorization.
Determining what is allegory or not is what has led to thousands of different flavours of Christianity....each one of them convinced that THEY have determined what is allegory and what isn't. Obviously, the way in which you guys are determining what is allegory, metaphor and truth.... just isn't working...
There are thousands and thousands of Protestant churches whereas there is only one Catholic Church that remains intact since Jesus created his church.
Honestly, some new bible fundamentalists are behaving in a very narrow manner. This was common in medieval times and in fact led to the reformation. One day someone will inevitable try to reform the bible fundamentalists. Every day a new Protestant church opens doors claiming to have the answer.
In the meantime the most elite Protestant scholars and ministers are converting back to Catholicism.
Hmm. That's interesting.
One problem I see with all that is the utter absence of anything referring to "souls", "Christ", "Clay", and "prophecy" in Genesis 1.
Well do you consider this a prophesy of Christ
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
If so it also says nothing of Christ, clay and prophesy.
Many prophecies of old were not known as prophecies until after Jesus lived, died and was resurrected.
Once theses things came to pass people understood that they were indeed prophecies of Christ.
The word created in Gen.1:26-27 comes from the Hebrew word bara and formed from Genesis 2:7 is the Hebrew word yatsar.
So why does the scriptures use two different words if they are both dealing with the creation of man?
Because the man being formed in Genesis 2:7 finds his fulfillment in Gen.1:26-27 in being created in the image and likeness of God.
Yatsar comes with the weight of something being squeezed into shape as a potter molding the clay.
Genesis 2:7 is telling us the process of how we are being formed into the image and likeness of God, it is not telling us how natural man was created, but it is telling us how the spiritual man is being created.
Now Gods breath is the brimstone (Is.30:33) spoken of in the second death and here it is called the BREATH OF LIFE. Now why would that which is seen as part of the make up of the second death be called the breath of life?
To understand why a part of the second death is called the breath of life let’s look at the meaning of the word BREATH.
It comes from the Hebrew word n\eshamah which is rooted in the Hebrew word nasham which means to destroy but also carries the weight of a woman in travail.
When God breathed the BREATH OF LIFE unto MAN it was for the destruction of the MAN that he was by birthing in the MAN of dust Jesus Christ.
Quote:
I would add, additionally, that Genesis 1 was most likely composed after Genesis 2-3. Just because they are arranged in their current order does not imply the same order of composition.
Do you have a reason why you see it this way?
I ask because if you look at Gen.1:28 it say they are to be fruitful and replenish the earth.
That they are to replenish the earth to me points to the new heaven and earth.
Quote:
A closer inspection of the two Creative Accounts will show their unrelatedness. When one starts putting them both in the same time-line is when contradictions start popping up. The point - in a previous post - was that this is easily avoided by realizing the composite nature of the composition of the Pentateuch. Check out the Documentary Hypothesis if you have time, or are willing.
Whopper I do not put them in the same time-line account, as a matter of fact my time-line is thousands of years apart. Therefore I do not have the conflicting contradictions you make mention of.
Can you give me a link to Documentary Hypothesis
Quote:
The concept of "God's image" has been a puzzling one, with many explanations having been offered. It's not clear in the text, and the verbal plurality of the subject (God or Gods: "Let US make") has been an additional puzzle, one that has been explained by various scholars as referring to the Divine Council - which had been made up of the "Sons of God". Perhaps that can be added to the current dicussion on the "Son" of God that is going on. I know the traditional, Fundamentalist Christian response is that it was the Trinity - but that idea is missing pre-1st Century AD, and the author was probably not envisioning an idea that was yet to manifest itself.
Either way we know the image and likeness is that of the heavenly and the first man Adam's image was that of the earth earthy, which pretty much imo says Gen.1:26-27 is not talking about the first man Adam.
The Documentary Hyopthesis (for those unfamiliar with it) has been one of the major working models for Biblical Scholarship for over a hundred years. It's been modified to a degree with other forms of investigation (Form Criticism, Literary Criticism, etc.), but it still holds an important part in Biblical Scholarship. A fantastic overview of the Documentary Hypothesis (or the JEDP Theory, as another label) can be found in Richard Elliot Friedman's book Who Wrote the Bible? While I don't agree with many of his conclusions, it is still a good introductory book. He has also published a translation of the Pentateuch in which he highlights the different sources in various colors. It is VERY helpful and it is called The Bible: With Sources Revealed. I cannot reccomend this latter book enough!
Thank you again for providing the link, Granpa.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Well do you consider this a prophesy of Christ
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
If so it also says nothing of Christ, clay and prophesy.
Many prophecies of old were not known as prophecies until after Jesus lived, died and was resurrected.
Once theses things came to pass people understood that they were indeed prophecies of Christ.
Prophecy?
I do not consider it a prophecy, and neither does the majority of Biblical scholars - whether they be Christian or Jewish. The problem is that it has a very clear meaning, and it retained this meaning for ages - only with the advent of Christianity was there an urge to try to find references to Jesus as the Messiah in the Bible (the Hebrew Bible, or "Old Testament"). With enough searching, and creative allegorizing - virtually anything can be made into a "prophecy" concerning the Messiah.
One of the best ways to approach a text is to do so with an eye to who wrote it, why they wrote it, who they wrote it for and what it means. The last question (what does it mean) can be highly influence by the previous ones. So why does Genesis 3 indicate that there will be enmity between humans and snakes? Well - because there IS enmity between humans and snakes. This an example of an etymological story.
Etymological Stories: Why the Bear has no Tail
These are stories that look at the world, and then try to explain why a certain "thing" is the way it is. For example - why don't bears have long tails like other animals? Well, one story tells us that he once had a long tail which he used for ice-fishing. He fell asleep one day, and the ice hole froze over - effectively trapping him since his tail was down in the water, though the hole. The bear got up to leave, and his tail ripped off. THAT is why the bear has no tail!
It's a wonderful story, isn't it? A common belief among the ancients was that snakes lived forever, because they shed their skins (they weren't biologists, after all heh heh!). Why this is so is told in the Epic of Gilgamesh, where the hero finds a plant that grants one's youth back. His plan is to take it back to his home town, Uruk, plant it, and then everyone can enjoy it's fruits. While taking a swim in a lake, however, he leaves the plant unguarded on the bank, and a snake comes by, eats it, immediately sheds his skin and crawls away! And THAT is why the snake lives forever by shedding his skin, and humans are mortal and must die.
Another thing that the ancients noticed (and many a modern person) is that snakes are generally nasty creatures that will bite you, especially on your foot or lower leg. If you have the unfortunate luck to be bitten by a poisonous snake, well - that's even worse! (See the story of the "fiery serpents" which bit the Israelites in the wilderness for a Biblical example) Most lizards don't do this, or turtles, or frogs or any number of other small animals. Humans, not being entirely ignorant concerning self-preservation, will usually kill a snake when they see it (many times by chopping it's head off or stomping on it), on the off-chance that the snake is dangerous; people still do this when they find a snake in their back yard. The author of the story in Genesis in which the serpent plays a prominent role was well aware of the "enmity" which humans and snakes have for each other.
The "Enmity" between Snakes and Humans
So why do snakes bite people on their "heel", and why do humans retaliate by "bruising their head"? Why is there this "enmity"? The author of the Genesis 2-3 account gives us an entertaining Etymological Story that explains why this is so. Within this same story are other etymological tales and explanations: why humans are mortal, why childbirth is painful, why men tend to make the decisions in a marriage, why the snake has no legs, why humans have to work for a living, why we wear clothing, etc.
Genesis 1-11 is considered "The Primeval History" by many scholars, and it is chock-full of etymological tales - they are not just limited to the Garden of Eden story. Other etymological tales center around names - which are very important to many Biblical authors: see the origin of the Ammonites and the Moabites (the story of Lot's daughters in Genesis). It's highly unlilkely that Ammon and Moab were named in such derogatory terms, but the biblical author (or perhaps an oral tradition) thought it would be hilarious to attribute such name-meanings to their enemies (enemies at the time that Genesis was actually written down).
The "detection" of a prophecy in these words has long been realized to be a false one, for one important fact is misconstrued: the serpent was NOT Satan. Though this subject is an involved one, the idea of a being called Satan as a malevolent evil opposing force to God was not in existence at the time of the writing of Genesis 2-3. This would occur later.
This association with Satan also destroys the Justice involved in cursing the serpent with having no legs, etc. Why would the hapless snake be cursed (and it's descendants) for something a Satan did? No - the text clearly says that the serpent (not a possessed serpent) was the most "subtle" or "shrewd" animal created by God. Later tradition would accuse this serpent of being the Devil, but this is a false ascription. Therefore, the so-called "prophecy" really doesn't have any value. Besides that, it was not common for the Old Testament writers to embed hidden prophecies in their works, for prophecies were almost always clearly labeled as such, and pronounced by Prophets. See Spinoza for more details.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
The word created in Gen.1:26-27 comes from the Hebrew word bara and formed from Genesis 2:7 is the Hebrew word yatsar.
So why does the scriptures use two different words if they are both dealing with the creation of man?
Because the man being formed in Genesis 2:7 finds his fulfillment in Gen.1:26-27 in being created in the image and likeness of God.
Yatsar comes with the weight of something being squeezed into shape as a potter molding the clay.
Very good observations concering the words used for "creating" and "shaping/forming". Once again, we can approach this from our multiple author theory.
Cosmic View versus Earthly View
The 1st Creative Account differs from the 2nd Creative Account in various ways. One of the biggest differences is the perspective from which it is told. The 1st Creative Acount takes a cosmic view - God creates light, separates it from pre-existing darkness, and brings order to pre-existing Chaos (symbolic of Evil). He creates the sun, the moon and the stars. He causes the dry land to appear amidst the seas, creates the sky to separate the waters. All very cosmic stuff.
He does this in a very dis-embodied fashion. The Hebrew word bara is used only in relation to God's actions - never of humans. In addition to this, God shows his cosmic power by just speaking - "Let there be light" - "and it was so". The whole series of events covers all of creation, down to mankind and finally culminates in the true point of the P Writer's story: the Sabbath. As a Priest, this writer was interested in demythologyzing certain aspects of previous Creation stories (Yahweh's fight with the Sea Monsters - see the Psalms, as well as other places), and of showing the importance of festivals and holidays (governed by the sun and the moon, etc) - and especially of the Sabbath. He also had an image of God as being so cosmic and powerful, removed from mundane earthly things, that the Creation is very universally motivated. God doesn't get his hands dirty.
The 2nd Creative Account differs from the 1st in being more folk-loristic, using an entirely different name for God (Yahweh God, or Yahweh of the gods) and from being told from a more "earthly" perspective: it does not tell of the creation of the light, the sky, and the sun and the moon but briefly- but starts on the earth with mundane, non-cosmic things. In the 1st CA - man is just one more item in the long list of items God creates. In the 2nd CA, man could be said to be the focal point of the story.
At the time of YHWH, God's making of earth and heaven,
no bush of the field was yet on earth,
no plant of the field had yet sprung up,
for YHWH, God, had not made it rain upon earth,
and there was no human/adam to till the soil/adamah -
but a surge would well up from the ground and water all the face of the soil;
and YHWH, God, formed the human, of dust from the soil,
he blew into his nostrils the breath of life
and the human became a living being.
(Genesis 2:4b-7, SB)
We are reminded that the 1st CA (Creative Account, from now on) does not mention the material from which humans were made - they were just created using the awesome power of God. In this very earthly account (notice that the cosmic things - stars, sun, moon, etc. - have already been created), the focus is squarely on earth and God - now Yahweh God - is given very human, anthropomorphic qualities. Here is where your verb usage comes into play. yatsar is a verb that is closer to meaning with "fashion" or "form" - as a potter would "form" something out of clay. It does not have the same connotation as the 1st CA's verb of "create". Even later, when Yahweh God makes a woman out of the man's rib, the very used is close to the meaning of "build" - as in someone "building" something out of pre-existing materials, like a laborer.
In this 2nd CA, Yahweh God walks around, he talks with his creatures, he forms the man out of mud and clay, he actually breathes life essence into the creature (like CPR almost), he "constrcuts" the woman, he looks for them when they have transgressed, he makes them clothing - he is very anthropomorphized, and the action takes place mostly on the earth. This is indicative of an early type of story-telling, before the pious P Writer (of the 1st CA, for example) became uncomfortable with the idea that God could be spoken of in such human terms. This is why Genesis 2-3 appears to come from an earlier strand of tradition than Genesis 1. The same type of thinking can be seen if one follows the P (Priestly Writer) and J (the Yahwist Writer) strands through the Torah, or Pentateuch.
The Jewish Study Bible has this to say concerning the differences:
Whereas 1:1-2:3 presented a majestic God-centered scenario of creation, 2:4-25 presents a very different but equally profound story of origins. This second account of creation is centered more on human beings and familiar human experiences, and even its deity is conceived in more anthropomorphic terms. Source critics attribute the two accounts to different documents (P and J, respectively) later combined into the Torah we have now. The classical Jewish tradition tends to harmonize the discrepancies by intertwining the stories, using the details of one to fill in the details of the other. Even on the source-critical reading, however, the contrast and interaction of the two creation accounts offer a richer understanding of the relationship of God to humankind than we would have if the accounts were read in isolation from each other.
(The Jewish Study Bible, p. 15, n. on Genesis 2.4-25, Oxford, 2004)
The above is very important, I feel. The "intertwining" is what creates contradictions - it is better to read them as two separate accounts, in my opinion.
So your pointing out of the different verbs have a definate importance, though I wouldn't attribute them to some sort of cosmic prophecy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Genesis 2:7 is telling us the process of how we are being formed into the image and likeness of God, it is not telling us how natural man was created, but it is telling us how the spiritual man is being created.
Now Gods breath is the brimstone (Is.30:33) spoken of in the second death and here it is called the BREATH OF LIFE. Now why would that which is seen as part of the make up of the second death be called the breath of life?
To understand why a part of the second death is called the breath of life let’s look at the meaning of the word BREATH.
It comes from the Hebrew word n\eshamah which is rooted in the Hebrew word nasham which means to destroy but also carries the weight of a woman in travail.
When God breathed the BREATH OF LIFE unto MAN it was for the destruction of the MAN that he was by birthing in the MAN of dust Jesus Christ.
"In the image of God" in Genesis 2-3?
I would suggest that in the Genesis 2-3 section - not once is it inferred, suggested or made explicit that mankind was created in the image of God. Feel free to doublecheck. Assuming that the J writer thought so, is to ignore the consensus that this was written earlier than the P Writer. The P Writer probably chose to have them made in the image of God to counter the then-current Near Eastern notion that the gods had made humans to be slaves to them, and they in now way resembled the gods in any shape or manner. The great innovation of the 1st CA is that humans were NOT created to be slaves for the gods, but were created to just be humans and act like humans - reproducing and multiplying.
Nepesh (nep̄eÅ¡), Soul, Life
The spiritual side of mankind is not mentioned in either of these stories, either - for such an idea was not held by the ancient Israelites writing these stories. God breathed into them nepesh - which is the life-force that keeps things alive. The word was also used to represent "life" and it is written in the Bible that when a person dies, their nephesh dies as well. This was a natural observation of the ancients, since when someone stopped breathing - they died. The next logical step from there was to attribute this "breath" to God, which was then called nepesh. With later Greek ideas of the soul, this nepesh was turned into some sort of spiritual force that existed beyond man's life-time - this is not a Biblical idea.
(As a head's up - the pronounciation is nefesh; some transliterate it as nephesh. The "f" sound is simply the soft prounciation of the letter "p").
See this example, concerning Jospeh and his brothers:
"So-now, come, let us kill him and cast him into one of these pits and say: an ill-tempered beast has devoured him!
Then we will see what becomes of his dreams!"
When Re'uven [Reuben] heard it he tried to rescue him from their hand, he said:
"Let us not take his life/nepesh!"
(Genesis 37:20-21, SB)
The word for "life" here is "nepesh" and it obviously is not referring to some sort of spiritual soul. It is retaining it's normal meaning. The nepesh can also die:
You have profaned My name among My people in return for handfuls of barley and morsels of bread;
you have announced the death of persons who will not die and the survival of persons who will not live - lying to My people, who listen to your lies.
(Ezekiel 13:19, NJPS)
Consider, all lives are Mine;
the life of the parent and the life of the child are both Mine.
The person who sins, only he shall die.
(Ezekiel 18:4, NJPS)
Some very clear references to the concept of nepesh, above. The book of Jonah gives another helpful reference:
Then they cried out to [Yahweh]:
"Oh, please, Yahweh, do not let us perish on account of this man's life.
Do not hold us guilty of killing an innocent person!
For You, O Yahweh, by Your will, have brought this about."
(Jonah 1:14, NJPS)
"Life" is the usual translation of "nepesh", though most Bibles deceptively use the term "soul". From the Anchor Bible's translation of a verse from the book of Job...
My soul within me is emptied;
Days of affliction seize me.
(Job 30:16, AB)
...we get a strange meaning, if one were to insist that "soul" means a spiritual thing. The note to this verse gives us invaluable information concerning the subject:
16a: soul
The term (nep̄eÅ¡) has a wide range of meaning, including breath, life, appetite, emotion, and the whole person. The idea of the soul as a separate entity from the body is unbiblical. One pours out the "soul," I Samuel 1:15; Psalm 42:5, as one's heart (mind) is poured out, Lamentations 2:19, in sorrowful supplication before God. The meaning here [Job 30:16a] is apparantly that the emotional strain caused by suffering has drained Job of all zest for life.
(Anchor Bible: Job, Marvin Pope, p. 222, n. on XXX:16a, Doubleday, 1965, rev. 1973)
So much for nepesh.
The Breath of Life
In the 2nd CA, man has a lowly origin - made out of the dust (or "clods" according to E.A. Speiser) of the earth. The "breath of life" that God physically breathes into him to bring him to life is a breath that the human cannot exist without - he is dependent on God for his very life.
I won't say much on this, but let Bill T. Arnold speak for me:
Using familiar terminology from the artistic craft of the potter, Yahweh God formed (yāṣar, "shaped") the man, breathed life into his nostrils, and he became "a living being". Of course, this last phrase has been debated for centuries and has played an enormous role in theological and philosophical speculation. Regardless of one's convictions about the nature of human life, we must not require this verse to say more than it intends. The "living being" is not some disembodied component of the human being, distinct from his physical existence; a "soul" comprising one portion of a person's whole being. Rather the "living being" denotes the totality of the human. Beyond this specific terminology used in v. 7, the importance of the human is clarified by his role in the earth. Far from a divine afterthought, as he is in certain ancient Near Eastern cosmogonic myths, the human is part of the solution to earth's problems. The lack of someone to till the ground (v. 5) is supplied by the human who plays the central role in this passage (v. 15). Humankind is earth's keeper.
(Genesis - The New Cambridge Bible Commentary, pp. 58-59, Cambridge University Press, 2008)
The last sentence referring to humankind as the earth's keeper should segue into your next suggestion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Do you have a reason why you see it this way?
I ask because if you look at Gen.1:28 it say they are to be fruitful and replenish the earth.
That they are to replenish the earth to me points to the new heaven and earth.
I think reading more into the passage of "replenishing" than the obvious meaning is ill-advised. The earth is new, it needs to be filled (the 1st command to humanity in the P Account) - but the verb for "replenish" does not have the connotations you think they do. It does not imply a prophecy to most people, and it goes against the plain reading of the text.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Whopper I do not put them in the same time-line account, as a matter of fact my time-line is thousands of years apart. Therefore I do not have the conflicting contradictions you make mention of.
Either way we know the image and likeness is that of the heavenly and the first man Adam's image was that of the earth earthy, which pretty much imo says Gen.1:26-27 is not talking about the first man Adam.
Hopefully you can see that I don't feel there are any contradictions in the two accounts (ONLY if you try to smush the two together into a single story do contradictions arise).
As for your last paragraph, hopefully I have shown that the idea of a spiritual side of mankind - as opposed to the earthly side - is not an idea to be found in the text of Genesis. If still unsure of this, see earlier in this post.
Please consider my reply carefully. Perhaps then you will see my reluctance to ascribe anything extra to the text (which is what the prophecy-motive would be doing). Hopefully, you have followed the link provided by Grandpa and given it some thought.
Personally, whether I believe what the text says or not - I prefer to let the text say what it is saying, rather than allegorizing it into a meaning that isn't present.
I'm going to have you stuffed and mounted in a glass case when you die.
I'm going to have you stuffed and mounted in a glass case when you die.
Ha ha! I'm not sure how to take or understand that..
At least put me in a cool pose where I'm battling stuffed polar bears with my bare hands!
Something like this pic below, except I don't need no stinkin' gun!
All of us are the sons of God, but that is not the point. He was the SON of God.
Being a Christian does not mean one has no common sense. Allegory is quite easy to determine.
But, you fail to detect the allegoric passages!
>>All of us are the sons of God, but that is not the point. He was the SON of God. <<
RESPONSE:
Ah, now I see. If you capitalize the letters, it changes things!
>>Being a Christian does not mean one has no common sense. Allegory is quite easy to determine.<<
RESPONSE:
Really? Let's take Matthew as an example, and perhaps you can tell us which passages are historical (they happened) or allegorical (they didn't actually happen).
Matt 1: 23 "Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel’
Matt 2: 23 "There he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He will be called a Nazorean.’
Matt 27: 52-53 "The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many."
Matt 28:6 "He is not here; for he has been raised, as he said. Come, see the place where he* lay."
>>But, you fail to detect the allegoric passages!
RESPONSE:
Really? Please present your evidence.
CH
Last edited by ancient warrior; 02-27-2012 at 07:13 AM..
Reason: typo
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
