Who IS "The Only TRUE God"- as Jesus put it?

[sojourner]

See how much you dont know. The parable is stated right there in Genesis and it how God is making man in "Our" image. This is backed up by multiple witnesses (scripture) also, but your scholars and theologians you praise so dearly dont teach you these things so how would you know right?

You know the scriptures have so much to say about you people who think you are so "scholary".

A parable is a particular literary device. Ask any literary critic. They will tell you that Genesis is not a parable.

 

[sojourner]

Then what is it?

I don't know. But metamorphosis entails stages of growth. That's just not the issue with God.

 

[smokydot]

Do you guys realise that the whole bible is one giant parable?

Parables are analogies.

What analogy is the epistle to the Romans?

 

[smokydot]

Not according to the best scholars.

And who would those scholars be?

And what are the parables, if not analogies?

It's only plain if we understand how the literary device works.

Since he wrote nothing, methinks his spoken words weren't "literary devices."

 

[sojourner]

And who would those scholars be?

Scott, Funk, Rhodes, Crossan, among others.

And what are they, if not analogies?

Well, actually they're more like allegory than analogy. The unique characteristic is that they involve a twist of the expected outcome. they're parabolic -- hence, the name "parable."

Since he wrote nothing, methinks his spoken words weren't "literary devices."

But they are written down, and they involve the use of language. They also use a particular device to get their point across.
You're arguing semantics.

 

[AK4]

Parables are analogies.

What analogy is the epistle to the Romans?

Interesting i just got finished reading that epistle. Anyway that epistle is the milk of the Word really. Also i dont really understand your question. The book of Romans is full of analogies and parables so i dont understand what your asking really. One big analogy in there is Paul trying to teach that freewill is a myth. But the church is so blinded they cant see it.

 

[Maimonides]

I don't know. But metamorphosis entails stages of growth. That's just not the issue with God.

Well isn't that what jesus did when he was.born in.the womb?

 

[smokydot]

sojourn, regarding your post #537, do you have responses to my points here?

Regarding leaven being poisonous, do you have a source for that?
What is the difference between leaven and yeast? Of what is leaven composed?
You indicated otherwise, that the parable was about the Holy Spirit, in post #537.
Jesus is describing the kingdom there, he is not describing God who became corrupt.

Don't you see, the parable of the leaven is one of a couplet, and both symbolize the same characteristic of the kingdom of God--its growth (Lk 13:18-21).

The first symbolizes the external growth of the kingdom: though the kingdom will seem to have an insignificant beginning, like the huge tree produced by the small mustard seed, it will eventually spread throughout the world.**

The second symbolizes the internal growth of the kingdom: the powerful influence of God's kingdom (the Holy Spirit) permeates one's whole life from the inside,
just as a small amount of yeast permeates the whole lump from the inside.
It is not an outward earthly kingdom, but an inward spiritual kingdom--hidden, like the leaven, quietly making its influence felt, without force or violence,
until one day it will come out into the open, to be seen by all.
This is particularly relevant to those who thought the Messiah would overthrow the secular government and set up an earthly kingdom.

There are some manifest problems with your interpretation. The parable clearly links the kingdom to the leaven and to the mustard seed.

1) Your interpretation of leaven makes the parable link the kingdom to corruption and uncleannes.

2) In order to make your linkage fit, you have to do some wrestling with its clear language (God became corrupt). But it's not about God. . .and the parable is not that abstruse.

3) Your interpretation sheds no real light on the nature of the kingdom--its hidden, quiet, non-violent influence from within, correcting the false messianic hopes of an earthly kingdom set up by overthrow.
__________

**Ps 104:16-17; Eze 17:22-23, 31-36; 1 Kgs 17:6

 

[sojourner]

Well isn't that what jesus did when he was.born in.the womb?

Birth is not the same as metamorphosis.

 

[smokydot]

Your opinion here is heresy.

Methinks the heresy is linking God with corruption (post #537).

Jesus did die. It's Biblical. he died and he was put in a grave. God became obedient to death, as Philippians tells us. Death is corruption.

1) Human conception is by a human father.
2) Human birth is to a fallen, sinful nature.
3) Death is corruption.

None of these apply to Jesus.

Jesus did not undergo corruption in the grave because
he was not a son of Adam, but the perfect Son of God,
his human nature was not born in original sin, nor sinful,
he was not subject to corruption.

You have a low non-Biblical view of God and Jesus Christ. . .it is too small.
Neither are in any way involved in sin, or in its effects.

this is really sticking in your craw, isn't it!

Is that a problem?

Methinks no more than it would stick in Paul's craw. . .

Good. Very good.

A convenient way to justify heresy.

Methinks Paul wouldn't think it was so good.

 

[smokydot]

Not if the translation obfuscates the original meaning.

Then why don't you check out the Greek in 1 Cor 11:31-32 and verify the original meaning?

See post #621 for exegesis.

Your objection to judgment meaning punishment, as in 1 Co 11:31-32, is based in nothing more than you have never heard of this concept before,
and are, therefore, convinced it cannot be true.

Your objection is not based in any facts, Biblical or otherwise.

 

[smokydot]

Human has 2 nature. physical (natural body) and spiritual.

The Physical body of Christ, was no different than yours or mine. He had eyes, feet, hand, etc. exactly as you and everyone else have.
What made Him different than normal people was His spiritual nature.
It was His spirituality that was a perfect image of God, not His physical body.

Yes, when we speak of Jesus as the image of God, we are not talking about a physical image.

 

[Katzpur]

Yes, when we speak of Jesus as the image of God, we are not talking about a physical image.

Can you prove that? Can you give me one, single solitary example of how you would use the word "image" in a sentence to mean anything other than physical appearance? You look in the mirror and you see your image. Identical twins are said to be the mirror image of one another, even if their personalities and character traits are completely opposite. A little boy who looks a lot like his dad is said to be "the spittin' image" of his father. A photograph is digitally recorded representation of what its subject looks like. When a sculptor carves a very realistic sculpture of his subject, it's said to be a very accurate image. I challenge you to come up with a sentence in which the word means something else. I bet you can't do it. And when the fifth chapter of Genesis says that Adam begot a son "in his image, after his likeness" what do you think it meant? I believe it meant that Adam's son looked like him. Why is it most Christians insist on saying the word doesn't mean what it means in virtually 100% of the cases in which it is used outside of the Bible?

 

[smokydot]

Scott, Funk, Rhodes, Crossan, among others.
Well, actually they're more like allegory than analogy. The unique characteristic is that they involve a twist of the expected outcome. they're parabolic -- hence, the name "parable."

Thanks.

But they are written down, and they involve the use of language. They also use a particular device to get their point across.
You're arguing semantics.

Actually, I'm arguing that the gospels report these words as the words of Jesus himself. Are you saying Jesus spoke as though he were writing?

I know you've been busy debating on the Trinity, but I still would like a response to my questions in post #637 on "feeling" in relation to the parables.

 

[smokydot]

Interesting i just got finished reading that epistle. Anyway that epistle is the milk of the Word really. Also i dont really understand your question. The book of Romans is full of analogies and parables so i dont understand what your asking really. One big analogy in there is Paul trying to teach that freewill is a myth. But the church is so blinded they cant see it.

Agreed on Romans.

I see, you didn't mean the Bible itself was a parable, you meant that it made extensive use of them.

 

[smokydot]

Can you prove that? Can you give me one, single solitary example of how you would use the word "image" in a sentence to mean anything other than physical appearance? You look in the mirror and you see your image. Identical twins are said to be the mirror image of one another, even if their personalities and character traits are completely opposite. A little boy who looks a lot like his dad is said to be "the spittin' image" of his father. A photograph is digitally recorded representation of what its subject looks like. When a sculptor carves a very realistic sculpture of his subject, it's said to be a very accurate image. I challenge you to come up with a sentence in which the word means something else. I bet you can't do it. And when the fifth chapter of Genesis says that Adam begot a son "in his image, after his likeness" what do you think it meant? I believe it meant that Adam's son looked like him. Why is it most Christians insist on saying the word doesn't mean what it means in virtually 100% of the cases in which it is used outside of the Bible?

All that matters here is what it means in the Bible.

Col 3:10 -- ". . .renewed in knowledge (of God) in the image of its Creator."

Eph 4:24 -- ". . .like God in true righteousness and holiness."

"Likeness" and "image" are synonyms in both the OT (Ge 5;1, 9:6)
and the NT (1 Co 11:7, Col 3:10, Jas 3:9).

The image of God includes knowledge of him, righteousness, holiness and delegated sovereignty ((Ge 1:26--rule over).

 

[Katzpur]

All that matters here is what it means in the Bible.

Col 3:10 -- ". . .renewed in knowledge (of God) in the image of its Creator."

Eph 4:24 -- ". . .like God in true righteousness and holiness."

"Likeness" and "image" are synonyms in both the OT (Ge 5;1, 9:6)
and the NT (1 Co 11:7, Col 3:10, Jas 3:9).

The image of God includes knowledge of him, righteousness, holiness and delegated sovereignty ((Ge 1:26--rule over).

What a stretch!

 

[smokydot]

What a stretch!

Sorry you don't agree with Scripture. . .

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Can you give me one, single solitary example of how you would use the word "image" in a sentence to mean anything other than physical appearance?

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Gen. 1:26

Meaning that God said, let’s create human to have the same attributes and virtues of God:
What are the attributes of God?

…the God of patience and consolation.. 15:5 Rom.
… the kindness and love of God…Tit. 3:5
… a God of truth…Deut. 32:5
To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgivenesses Dan. 9:10
And more and more.

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him” Gen. 1:27
So that human also be like God and have the same attributes; kindness, patience, love, justice, forgiveness …

But do we perfectly reflect the image of God? Even as He said:

“Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker?” Job 4:18

Meaning that human reflects the same attributes, but not as perfectly as His Maker.

But God wished human to be a perfect image of Himself, therefore He said:

“Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” Mat. 5:48

Therefore God chooses some perfect men among His servants, even As he said:

“Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.” Gen. 6:10

And again He said:

“There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright..” Job. 1:1

And God chooses those perfect men as His prophets, and asks them to guide others, so “That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” 2Tim. 3:17

Therefore He sent His Spirit upon those perfect men and made them prophets, as even He said:

“lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him” Mat. 3:17

and when he sent the Spirit He raised His Servant to do the job for God:

“...as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” - Rom. 6:4

And He taught people, walk in the path of spirit, not in the path of selfish desires, even as He said:

“For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.” 8:7 Rom.

But some people didn’t learn and didn’t follow His guidance, even as he called them dead:

“Let the dead bury their dead.” Luke 9:60.

And some listened and followed the teachings, and didn’t die:

“For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” Rom. 8:3

 

[Katzpur]

Sorry you don't agree with Scripture. . .

I could say the same about you. Shall we play that silly game or not?