Search results

(a) That's talking about Revelation (b) The discussion here is centered on parts of Genesis being not-literal, not completely missing

We do need parts of Genesis. Abraham and his covenant with God are a foundation stone that cannot be done without. But if Adam & Eve aren't literal, or if the story of the Fall of Man was completely missing, Christianity would be just fine. We would still have "all have sinned and fall short...

That's not sound logic. If there were no story of Adam & Eve, we wouldn't have the idea that everything was once perfect or pristine. We would assume that everything had always been messy and error-full. That being the case, there would still be the need for a saviour. Honestly, if you...

Like I said, it isn't for the infant. It's for the church.

Baptism isn't just for the baptizee. It's also for the church - it's a public declaration that someone is "one of us." Infant baptism is just the church accepting someone a little prematurely.

Not at all. Let's answer those questions... To give us an example of how to live. To become the icon of the invisible God. To assume all authority in heaven and earth as Lord of all creation. 100 other reasons. In order to defeat death, one must confront death. Jesus death was an assault...

Motorhead's cover is better than the original.

Yes - for Satan, and the Beast, and the False Prophet. But traditional Christianity seems to want to send most people to a hell of eternal torment. That isn't what I find written in the Bible. I find that those who die in unbelief are destroyed, or die, or "go into perdition" which also just...

Did you actually read the verse? It tells us exactly who is subject to eternal torments: ✔ Satan ✔ Beast ✔ False Prophet ❌ Everybody Else And if one were to put in a little extra effort and look at the surrounding verses, it also tells us exactly what happens to the people that were deceived...

That one seems to be disprovable, so I am less of a fan.

Ok, what was Matthew's purpose for his genealogy? I think there's a clue in Matthew 7, one of several places in the New Testament where it teaches that genealogies are not useful for determining who is an authentic child of Abraham (Matt 7, John 6-8, 1Tim 1, Titus 3), and that instead we should...

Basic rhetorical technique - it's easy to get the answer you want when you exclude all possibilities other than (a) my way or (b) something overtly undesirable.

Until very recently, History was more political than academic. Histories have mostly been written to chronicle the glory of kings. What-actually-happened has been a secondary concern. As I read it, Genesis isn't really concerned with either of those things. The stories there mostly seem to...

Disagree. Most of us have loved ones who we're... unsure of... shall we say? There seems to be a pretty big difference between "puts the evil to death" and "tortures the evil endlessly for all eternity."

Genesis isn't a single account. It's a collection of accounts that have been edited together.

So... that's the chapter we were discussing. Do you find that you have a hard time following conversations sometimes?

Not in John 3 He didn't. It's perfectly reasonable to interpret salvation in the gospels in terms of being saved during the Roman destruction of the nation in 70AD. Why? because that actually happened. When the Romans arrived, the Christians heeded the warnings in the gospels and basically...

History as a genre didn't exist until the 6th century BC. We believe Moses lived AT LEAST 600 years earlier than that. Now that doesn't make it untrue. It doesn't necessarily mean parts aren't literal. But it does mean, most likely, that the purpose of what was written wasn't to record...

Perishing, yes. But nary a mention of hellfire.

The Bible is pretty clear that belief on Jesus is required for salvation. The Bible is, however, NOT very clear as to what that salvation entails. There are several things to be saved from in the Bible. Hell is only one of them. I can't think of a place where hell is mentioned alongside...