Posted on 06/21/2005 4:27:46 PM PDT by Buggman
They have nothing to do with Process theology. I think you have confused Dodd with Cobb. Dodd was a Presbyterian.
Yes, I believe that the biblical account of the ark and the account of Jonah is true. Do I also believe that they are metaphors, giving the discerning student a deeper understanding of biblical truth? yes.
If I were to say that the judgment procedings of a court hearing had commenced, would you suppose that that meant that the judgment had been carried out? The proceedings in the court of the Lord have commenced by the fifth seal, but the sentence--the wrath of the Day of the Lord--has not yet started.
You have kept me up too long, a pox on your house.
*chuckle* Sorry about that. Sleep well and God bless, my friend.
I submit myself and my every belief to the Scriptures; you seek to judge them. If that makes me a fool in your eyes, then I praise Yeshua that I am God's fool instead of a fool of the world.
If the answer to all these is yes, then what do you have against the literal interpretation of prophecy?
Having fun? :-)
Now, God wrote on the plates of stone in his own hand: "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is..." Do you believe God?
BTW since you were kind enough to answer my last question, the communion literally tastes like crackers and grape juice which, of course, interferes with any belief I might have that it is "literally" the flesh and blood of Christ. However, Jesus did say he was the "Bread" so if you want to get technical....
Loads
ROTFL!!!! Love it!
Very interesting Buggman. My favorite subject. Looking forward to more and to your book.
Very interesting Buggman. My favorite subject. Looking forward to more and to your book.
P.S. That was Seiss, not Barnhouse.
Great post, P-Marlowe! I fully agree with you!
"I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right." -- Isaiah 45:19
"Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing." -- John 18:20
Having worked in publishing, I have to wonder who you intend for your audience to be. Are you going to submit it for publication? If so, you might need to defend it in comparison to the works of other theologians. Or, are you going to publish it yourself? If so, who will you market it to? A book with no audience is a lot of hours wasted.
I googled your name to see if you had other publications but all I found by the same name was a treatise on something that looked like it had to do with Dungeons and Dragons. If that piece of writing is yours, perhaps theology is not your strong suit.
Yes, for the book of Revelation to be understood, one must start with that first great prophet, Moses, and proceed from there. It is really not all that complicated. Thank you for your import.
Of course, I meant imput. My English sometimes is not very good.
Perhaps Polycarp1 is correct.
"Literally" is not appropriate as you have used it regarding the body and the blood. "Literately" would be more in order because that is the meaning of a "literal" interpretation of scripture.
A literate, bible student would know that in the the "body/blood" passages, Jesus himself said "my words are spirit and they are life." Therefore, "literally" I do participate in the body and blood spiritually.
But, I detect from your writings that you have a "low" view of God. God is not capable of creating, nor is he capable knowing or directing the future.
My question would be, "Just what can this God you describe do? Don't you find yourself more often making up excuses for him than anything else?
And finally, what good is a God who is less than omnipotent and less than omniscient?
When it comes to differences in what appears to be the same event, I've always attempted explanation first from the "Various perspectives" viewpoint.
If I'm standing on the north corner and you are on the south corner, there is a car wreck, and we are asked to write an account of the wreck, then we are going to write about the same thing from our particular vantage points. Both can be entirely true AND have differences.
Luke says that in producing his gospel he meticulously gathered the accounts of those things that happened.
1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished R1 F1 among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from R2 the beginning were F2 eyewitnesses R3 and servants R4 F3 of the R5 word, F4 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having R6 investigated F5 everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in R7 consecutive order, most R8 excellent Theophilus; R9 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. R10 F6
Both Matthew & Luke are faithfully reporting. IMO, It is better to see a single discourse, than to attempt to come up with 2 extremely similar episodes that are within hours of each other. I find that view to be overly frightened.
It is the UNTIDINESS of the gospels that verify the integrity of the reports.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.