Ebionite
Well-Known Member
And you would uncritically accept his condemnation without hearing his side of the story?It is amusing that you think that is the point where Wyatt lacks credibility.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
And you would uncritically accept his condemnation without hearing his side of the story?It is amusing that you think that is the point where Wyatt lacks credibility.
We have heard his side if the story. I doubt if you could support him. The condemnation is well earned. Look at the picture of a ship's brass valve wheel again. It is solid metal. If it was gold leaf the wood on the bottom would be exposed. Gold leaf does not react very much chemically. But it is rather fragile. Chariot wheels running in rough gravel would quickly remove it.And you would uncritically accept his condemnation without hearing his side of the story?
If something is an event it may be metaphorical, if it is a statement/command from God or Jesus it is not metaphorical.
Jesus saying the only path to Heaven is through him is not metaphorical.
A whale swallowing Jonas could be.
And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
I critically condemn him having heard his side of the story.And you would uncritically accept his condemnation without hearing his side of the story?
It's too late for that. The guy is dead.I critically condemn him having heard his side of the story.
He died in 99. So what?It's too late for that. The guy is dead.
So his defence was never heard in a court of law.He died in 99. So what?
Again. So what? Why are you talking about courts of law?So his defence was never heard in a court of law.
Because of justice. It's pretty easy to sway the court of popular opinion when the MSM has an interest.Again. So what? Why are you talking about courts of law?
This is a circular argument. You are using s statement in the bible as evidence the bible is error-free. But if the bible is not error-free then the statement you are relying on might not be reliable.I don’t agree. If God is infallible, then so will His Word be infallible. If the scriptures are inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16), then to consider them to be doctrinally error free cannot be idolatry in my view.
Seems that you have already bought into your own assumptions about how and where and when I got my knowledge of Wyatt's claims.Because of justice. It's pretty easy to sway the court of popular opinion when the MSM has an interest.
Was I wrong?Seems that you have already bought into your own assumptions about how and where and when I got my knowledge of Wyatt's claims.
The literal items on your list areThis is an event in the story in which there was a command from God. Which of these is literal, and how do you know?
- the man,
- the garden,
- the tree,
- the fruit,
- the knowledge of good and evil
- the certain death
- God
Do you have the humility to acknowledge that you don't know? Or are you going to try and brazen it out?Was I wrong?
How do you reconcile that with your earlier position that anything God commands is literal.The literal items on your list are
1. The man
2. The knowledge of good and evil
3. God
Telling the story of the Garden is not a command.How do you reconcile that with your earlier position that anything God commands is literal.
It is never too late for you to admit that you were wrong.It's too late for that. The guy is dead.
That is not where one defends scientific findings.So his defence was never heard in a court of law.
Oh come on! Don't give us conspiracy theories. You are now entering tin foil hat territory.Because of justice. It's pretty easy to sway the court of popular opinion when the MSM has an interest.
Without a doubt.Was I wrong?