Christians Preferred: Are only Literalists True Christians™?

[ElishaElijah]

If you claim that then you are saying that Jesus is not God.

Claim what?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Claim what?

Don't you know how the quote function works?

You claimed this:

"Jesus Christ is that as well, ask Him"

Claiming that Jesus made the mistake of literalism. By making that claim you are stating that he is not God.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Don't you know how the quote function works?

You claimed this:

"Jesus Christ is that as well, ask Him"

Claiming that Jesus made the mistake of literalism. By making that claim you are stating that he is not God.

Jesus Christ was there at the flood, it wasn’t a myth. And He made reference to its validity so you’re mistaken on all counts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jesus Christ was there at the flood, it wasn’t a myth. And He made reference to its validity so you’re mistaken on all counts.

Your reasoning is flawed. We know that there was no flood. You refuse to learn how we know that. Refusing to learn is like purposefully sticking one's foot in a bucket before a fight.

Jesus quite often used literary tools. If he was God that is what he was doing. When a person says "She is as old as the hills" that does not mean that the person being talked about is thousands of years old. It simply means that she is very old. There is no good reason to make that sort of error in regard to what Jesus believed.

Now Jesus may have believed the flood myth, but that would have been because he was just a man.

 

[metis]

it is a conversation between Krishna, considered to be a main god, is that right, and Arjuna, is that not true?

A main god, not the main god, so yes, it's otherwise true.

So, how do you know it's wrong, and please supply objective evidence for your opinion?


BTW, the creator-god in Hinduism is "Brahman", but the God that's the head of all is "Brahma", better known in English as "God". When Gandhi conducted his prayer vigils, for example, he used the languages of Hindi ["Brahma"}, Arabic ["Allah"], and English ["God"]. Thus, all the same Dude.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A main god, not the main god, so yes, it's otherwise true.

So, how do you know it's wrong, and please supply objective evidence for your opinion?

"For the Bible tells me so"?

 

[ElishaElijah]

Your reasoning is flawed. We know that there was no flood. You refuse to learn how we know that. Refusing to learn is like purposefully sticking one's foot in a bucket before a fight.

Jesus quite often used literary tools. If he was God that is what he was doing. When a person says "She is as old as the hills" that does not mean that the person being talked about is thousands of years old. It simply means that she is very old. There is no good reason to make that sort of error in regard to what Jesus believed.

Now Jesus may have believed the flood myth, but that would have been because he was just a man.

Or take a hike, get lost, dumber than dirt, cool as a cucumber etc. Not what Jesus did or taught, which is why you’re considered an unbeliever and not a believer. When He taught parables everyone knew they were stories with a message, not so with Noah and the flood.

 

[metis]

We know that there was no flood.

Jesus quite often used literary tools. If he was God that is what he was doing. When a person says "She is as old as the hills" that does not mean that the person being talked about is thousands of years old. It simply means that she is very old. There is no good reason to make that sort of error in regard to what Jesus believed...

Now Jesus may have believed the flood myth, but that would have been because he was just a man.

Exactly, but the unfortunate reality is that some use their religious beliefs more like being blinders versus realizing that enlightenment comes from many sources.

Personally, I drift in the direction that the Creation and Flood narratives are more likely a refutation of the earlier and much more widespread polytheistic Babylonian narratives, but focus was more on general moral teachings versus objective history, probably carried orally for decades or even centuries. However, the scribes later on may have perceived it as also being history, and this also might include Jesus as well. We gotta remember that Jesus never claimed he was omniscient, such as when he said he didn't know when the end of times would be as only the Father would know.

 

[ElishaElijah]

“Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭2:19-22‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

Don’t know about you all but I’m part of this building.

 

[YoursTrue]

A main god, not the main god, so yes, it's otherwise true.

So, how do you know it's wrong, and please supply objective evidence for your opinion?


BTW, the creator-god in Hinduism is "Brahman", but the God that's the head of all is "Brahma", better known in English as "God". When Gandhi conducted his prayer vigils, for example, he used the languages of Hindi ["Brahma"}, Arabic ["Allah"], and English ["God"]. Thus, all the same Dude.

I'll go back to this, but I believe I did say *a* main god about Krishna, didn't I?

 

[YoursTrue]

What are you trying to communicate? That all they had at that time as far as Scripture was the OT Scriptures?

I was wondering that, too.

 

[YoursTrue]

“Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭2:19-22‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

Don’t know about you all but I’m part of this building.

I understand your point, I think we may be able to discuss it later.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Or take a hike, get lost, dumber than dirt, cool as a cucumber etc. Not what Jesus did or taught, which is why you’re considered an unbeliever and not a believer. When He taught parables everyone knew they were stories with a message, not so with Noah and the flood.

LOL! Why wouldn't an event that never happened be a literary tool?

You keep forgetting that others know that there was no flood. You refuse to learn how we know this. I see a few possibilities. If Jesus was just a man he may have believed the flood myth. Back then they did not have the benefits of hundreds of years of scientific research into the matter that demonstrates that it never happened. We could politely discuss why we know that there was no flood. Until you do you end up saying that Jesus was just a man when you claim that he believed in the flood. There is a possibility that Jesus was God, but in that case he was not being literal. Or if God is a liar then all bets are off. But that would require hundreds of years of flood "miracles" after the fact where God covered up his evil deeds.

 

[ElishaElijah]

LOL! Why wouldn't an event that never happened be a literary tool?

You keep forgetting that others know that there was no flood. You refuse to learn how we know this. I see a few possibilities. If Jesus was just a man he may have believed the flood myth. Back then they did not have the benefits of hundreds of years of scientific research into the matter that demonstrates that it never happened. We could politely discuss why we know that there was no flood. Until you do you end up saying that Jesus was just a man when you claim that he believed in the flood. There is a possibility that Jesus was God, but in that case he was not being literal. Or if God is a liar then all bets are off. But that would require hundreds of years of flood "miracles" after the fact where God covered up his evil deeds.

If a person doesn’t believe what God said in His revealed Word then that person won’t be able to see or comprehend God, simple as that. On the other hand a person that hears God and believes what He says, God reveals Himself to that person. You can argue all you want to and it’s a waste of time. Everyone will know everything at the judgement, don’t think anyone will be asking if the Flood was a real event or not, will be clear that it did happen just like it’s written.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If a person doesn’t believe what God said in His revealed Word then that person won’t be able to see or comprehend God, simple as that. On the other hand a person that hears God and believes what He says, God reveals Himself to that person. You can argue all you want to and it’s a waste of time. Everyone will know everything at the judgement, don’t think anyone will be asking if the Flood was a real event or not, will be clear that is did happen just like it’s written.

But the Bible is not "what God said". Where does it even claim that it is?

The Bible was written by man, not by God. The problem is that you, even though you do not realize it, are at best claiming that God is a liar. If God cannot lie then the Bible cannot be interpreted literally. Most Christians do not share your beliefs. Most Christians do not believe that God is a liar. As a result they can still believe in God and the Bible without demanding that it be read literally.

The Ostrich Defense does not work in real life.

 

[ElishaElijah]

But the Bible is not "what God said". Where does it even claim that it is?

The Bible was written by man, not by God. The problem is that you, even though you do not realize it, are at best claiming that God is a liar. If God cannot lie then the Bible cannot be interpreted literally. Most Christians do not share your beliefs. Most Christians do not believe that God is a liar. As a result they can still believe in God and the Bible without demanding that it be read literally.

The Ostrich Defense does not work in real life.

Do a Bible study and see, clear as day

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do a Bible study and see, clear as day

I have. I have never seen a Christian come up with a valid defense for that belief.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I have. I have never seen a Christian come up with a valid defense for that belief.

If you have, what does the Bible say about this subject?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you have, what does the Bible say about this subject?

At best the Bible says that it is "inspired" and technically that only applies to the Old Testament:

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Do you see that it says that it is literally true there? I do not. What you should pay attention to is the line that says it is useful for teaching etc.. If Genesis is a series of morality tales it is still useful for teaching. Think of Aesop's Fables. No one thinks that those are literally true, yet they are still useful for teaching.

 

[ElishaElijah]

At best the Bible says that it is "inspired" and technically that only applies to the Old Testament:

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Do you see that it says that it is literally true there? I do not. What you should pay attention to is the line that says it is useful for teaching etc.. If Genesis is a series of morality tales it is still useful for teaching. Think of Aesop's Fables. No one thinks that those are literally true, yet they are still useful for teaching.

That’s one of many Scriptures, have you actually looked at them? What about the Scriptures He wrote with His own finger.