First of all, that bit (”The Argument”) by Monty Python is one of my favorite comedy sketches of all times. I first heard it in about 1973 or so on one of their albums, which I still have in my LP collection. It is one of the cleverest comedy sketches ever written, in my opinion.
As to why you cited it, I don’t know, because I would argue it applies to your side of this debate. I submitted for consideration the irrationality of the wild statements attributed to Jesus in the Bible regarding the efficacy of prayer. Your response was that I misinterpreted what Jesus was saying, arguing that Jesus said that prayer had to be “for him,” or some such nonsense. I pointed out that there is, in fact, no such qualification in his statements about prayer in Scripture. Your response now, referring to the Python colloquy about the definition of an argument, only proves my point. You have nothing to contradict my assertions, other than your insistence that the Bible says something other than the plain meaning of the words in it.
[You have nothing to contradict my assertions, other than your insistence that the Bible says something other than the plain meaning of the words in it.]
And you sir have nothign but an insistence that Christ’s implied meanings which should be obvious from a thorough reading of His teaching all during His walk on this earth doesn’t mean what it meant. you’re playing literalist when it suits you- when literalism is obviously not what Christ meant as explained thoroughly by Him, and you’re playing non literalist when it doesn’t suit you when literalism is obvious to anyone with a reasoning mind and a basic knowledge of the word. McArthur explained it bluntly, plainly, we’ve explained it, yet you want- no, make that NEED for Christ’s words to not contain His implied understandings so that you can prop up your dead argument and point at the Christian and laugh. This is a common tactic of folks who will beleive nothign and use everything, including literlism where no literalism is obviously warrented in order to malign the Christian faith.
If you need further proof that Jesus was speaking figuratively, and not talking about performing feats of supernatural acts Then here is yet another EXPERT on the bible explaining it in even greater detail to you. This is the words of a biblical Scholar- someone who devoted their entire lives to fully understanding God’s word- not just some casual reader who picked and chose what he liked and threw the rest out- He is explaining it to you in detail because He has studied God’s word in it’s entirety and undertands God’s word in the context of His WHOLE word. Your argument holds no water- it is finished.
Adam Clarke- noted biblical Scholar, and respected authoritive commentator on the bible:
“Mat 21:21 -
If ye have faith, and doubt not - See on Mat_17:20 (note). Removing mountains, and rooting up of mountains, are phrases very generally used to signify the removing or conquering great difficulties - getting through perplexities. So, many of the rabbins are termed rooters up of mountains, because they were dexterous in removing difficulties, solving cases of conscience, etc. In this sense our Lord’s words are to be understood. He that has faith will get through every difficulty and perplexity; mountains shall become molehills or plains before him. The saying is neither to be taken in its literal sense, nor is it hyperbolical: it is a proverbial form of speech, which no Jew could misunderstand, and with which no Christian ought to be puzzled.”
Jesus OFTEN spoke figuratively, yet. literalists liek yourself simply can’t accept that, and repeatedly point ot passages liek htis and demand that the Word be read literally- As I mentioend before- you and other literalists have a profound misunderstanding of God’s word, and a lack of educated understanding in regards to biblical times, Cultural customs etc, and you folk think you’ve trapped peopel when you try to point out passages that were never meant to be literally read- but it just shows a lack of understanding, and a deep desire to ignore explanations in order to have amunition you can then throw at Christians.
If you wish to go throuygh life believing God and Christ are frauds and liars or non existent, then that’s fien- As I said, We’ll agree to dissagree- but IF you chose to come out and beat a dead issue into the ground in an effort to publicly make a dead case that accuses My God, My Christ as liars and frauds, then expect to be challenged because I have much more than just a passing glancing knowledge of God’s word in it’s entire context- picking and choosing verses you think disprove God wil lget you into all kinds of trouble because you have taken them completely out of context- and I’ll point that out to you each time
YOU:"You are wrong. I don’t know which passage you are referring to"
John 14:13
And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father.
John 14:14
You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
John 15:16
You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.
John 16:23
In that day you will no longer ask me anything. I tell you the truth, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.
John 16:24
Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you will receive, and your joy will be complete.
John 16:26
In that day you will ask in my name. I am not saying that I will ask the Father on your behalf.
===========================
Now it goes against my better judgement to show you these, because I fully expect you to just crap all over them and start the whole "Argument Sketch" and just simply condradict me without offering any real substance, but you did say:
"I pointed out that there is, in fact, no such qualification in his statements about prayer in Scripture."
I say that there is, in fact, such qualification in his statements about prayer in scripture.
...Terriyaki or Barbeque sauce?
;-/