When they are conveyed, people are brought face to face with them...i.e. the facilitation of an encounter that might otherwise not happen... and, by definition, a choice is made available by virtue of that same encounter.
THE BIBLICAL EXODUS ACCOUNT
- Thread starter SetiAlpha6
- Start date
When they are conveyed, people are brought face to face with them...i.e. the facilitation of an encounter that might otherwise not happen... and, by definition, a choice is made available by virtue of that same encounter.
The same could be said of fairy tales but we don't see many people on this site trying to prove the historic accuracy of Cinderella.
True that.
Agreed. I think I've said as much in a comment to sideshowbob, specifically, that conveying the truth of the text cannot be accomplished by one human being to another. The point of origin of that particular 'communication' originates from without this apparent 'isolated system'...the truthfulness of the text, once conveyed, gives rise to understanding/'seeing' the chain of events forming the macro view of that same 'system'.
Then you agree that nothing literal about the Bible is true? It's only true as metaphor?
I agree that a person could view the Bible as you suggested and then reason as you did in your post/analogy. In my opinion, it can't be viewed any other way. However, is there a person who, on the one hand, has been enabled to believe the Bible to be a literal presentation of an expanded reality (i.e. a book that removes the limitations of our minds' eye by enabling us to see beyond the merely physical to the existence/functioning of a higher realm ruled by Christ Himself) whereby they have taken Christ as Lord/Savior, yet on the other rejects everything shown to it concerning that realm/salvation on account of that same enabling provided them? Debatable, but I think the evidence (the Bible) leads one to answer "no". That same evidence reveals that for beings presently higher than humans, a choice was made to do exactly that (reject in the face of knowing better), and now having made such a choice, it is irrevocable. The same holds true for humans who refuse to make a choice during their lifetime or, who, in the face of testimony by others concerning what those others have discovered by their experience reject that reality made known to them--though only after they pass from this physical scene. While breath is drawn, humans always have opportunity to change.
Last edited:
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
It is essential to Christianity that the characters in the Old Testament are literal as Luke's genealogy of Jesus requires it to be so:
Luke 3:23-38
The Genealogy of Jesus Christ
23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,[a] the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi,30 the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon, 33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan,38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
Well, that's obviously nonsense.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
What's nonsense?
Since Jesus was only supposedly the son of Joseph, Luke's genealogy is thoroughly irrelevant.
The genealogy. While it could not be taken as anything but literal, I'll give you that, I doubt they kept such accurate records, and it certainly doesn't go back to Adam, because there wasn't one. It's more likely that it was included to give a certain verisimilitude to the text.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
Why?
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
It's amazing how atheists/agnostics say with certainty what is true or false with no evidence whatsoever, but if a theist writes in such a manner it is nonsense. Don't you agree?
Because it isn't Jesus' genealogy. It has nothing to do with Him.
No. I just dismiss assertions that are made with no evidence. Even Jesus' name is suspicious, since it means "savior". Coincidence? I doubt there was a real Jesus at all.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
It is his genealogy as by Jewish Law Joseph was Jesus' dad, adopted maybe, but Joseph's genealogy remains relevant and confirms that Jesus is from the Davidic line, and Luke just so happened to go back to Adam and God.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
Such as your assertion was?
No. My assertions are consistent with many post-hoc "prophecies" in the Bible, invented to make the character of Jesus seem to fulfill Old Testament expectations.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
Evidence that they were invented please.
The bodies of millions of Christians often dying horrifically because they believed, in Santa, oh no Jesus.
It is crazy to say that there wasn't a historical figure called Jesus, it's just a common atheist "belief".
So you can label yourself an anti-Christ.
Roman census included just Judea, Samaria and Idumea, not Galilee, where Jesus’ family allegedly lived (the Romans kept rather complete records of these things). Furthermore, Roman law assessed an individual’s property in the place of his residence, not his birthplace anyway, so the Biblical account is almost certainly wrong. So why was this legend included in the text?
(Hence the genealogy linking Jesus to David)
It doesn't matter if Jesus was real or not for Christians to believe the legend. No Christians in Rome even met Jesus, so how would they know? It's crazy to accept the common narrative as true if there is no valid evidence to support it. In fact, most people aren't aware that it's just a tradition, not a historical truth. It has nothing to do with my view on Christianity, which would be the same if he were real or not. Kinda sucks they died for nothing, huh?
Anti-christ? Flattery will get you nowhere my friend.
“Luke’s real source for the view that Jesus was born in Bethlehem was almost certainly the conviction that Jesus fulfilled a hope that someday a descendant of David would arise to save Israel,” because the Messiah was supposed to come from there (Micah 5:2). [E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (p. 87.)].
(Hence the genealogy linking Jesus to David)
It doesn't matter if Jesus was real or not for Christians to believe the legend. No Christians in Rome even met Jesus, so how would they know? It's crazy to accept the common narrative as true if there is no valid evidence to support it. In fact, most people aren't aware that it's just a tradition, not a historical truth. It has nothing to do with my view on Christianity, which would be the same if he were real or not. Kinda sucks they died for nothing, huh?
Anti-christ? Flattery will get you nowhere my friend.
Last edited: