Search results

I take this story as figurative, but once you de-code the symbols, it tells literal history. As I figure it, the trees here represent different kings or kingdoms. This interpretation comes from Ezekiel 31: Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a shadowing...

I don't think anyone can completely answer the question, but... We CAN compare the gospels to the other books written in the same period, and that come out of the same culture. Do that, and you'll find that those other writings are fantastic by comparison. Jubilees, for example, re-tells Old...

I think perhaps he's confusing Philo of Alexandria with the church of the same city. That was indeed Philo's purpose. However, Philo was not a member of the church there. Philo was Jewish, founded his own sect (of Judaism, not Christianity) and died before the church was really a big thing...

I don't think he spelled it that way. He probably wrote it as Ὠριγένης, or maybe something in Egyptian like?

Yep - both positions make sense from the text. Also, both positions require that we take one statement or the other as not-literal. I lean in favor of the idea that Jonah died and was resurrected. It makes sense with Jesus statement about 'the sign of Jonah' with regards to His own death and...

Ok, I'll bite...

There are certainly scholars who have proposed it. But if there are stories about Jesus that are fabrications... and there certainly are... why would that call into question the existence of such a historical person? Consider the case of King Arthur. Virtually everyone agrees that he was a...

Jonah 2 says: Then Jonah prayed unto the LORD his God out of the fish's belly AND I cried by reason of my affliction to the LORD, and He heard me; out of the belly of hell I cried Can we really interpret both verses literally? Maybe?

Yes, but more than that, DEBATE was allowed. The early church didn't operate with a single speaker (pastor, preacher) like most do today. Everyone was allowed to engage, though "only 2 or 3 at a time" per Paul's restriction. =) Me too. I read Ante-Nicene Fathers with great interest, but I...

And then there's me, the weirdo who thinks the "body" we are meant to "discern" is composed of the people gathered round the table.

Most cussing isn't actually prohibited by the Bible. (That doesn't make it a good thing, though) What the Bible actually says is: 1) Don't use the name of the Lord in vain, and 2) Don't make oaths So you don't want to say things like "swear to God," or anything that puts a penalty on...

Now that you've thoroughly disproved the OP, I wish that rather than deleting it, @Rich R would simply add a retraction to it. I did tell him on page 1 that the Jews and the churches of Syria and Africa continued the practice without abatement. Ah well.

We can't go very far down this road, because the forum prohibits discussions of the trinity. That in itself probably makes my point, but I will say... among those who believe in the trinity (the vast majority), there is very little agreement on what that actually means. For instance, the...

Hell is a poor bit of translation, but I'm fairly sure the creed actually means Hades. The idea that Jesus went to Hades, attacked it and defeated death and set the captives there free is pretty well-established in the early church.

The idea of creeds is reasonable to me. But when I look at the first creeds, they immediately require uniformity on positions that weren't well-established. i.e. the tr!nity is far-from-established, even today...

Even those aren't without problems. Look at how some idolize Scripture - that doesn't happen without canon. Creeds conceptually force some unity on the church, but in practice they seem to put some people outside of the church who don't need to be on the outside.

Adding layers of complexity to explain away their own misunderstandings, IMO

Where it comes to doctrine, I am generally of the opinion that older is better, and original is best. Too long talking to folks on forums who are part of the Restoration Movement, probably.

Removing Adam as a literal ancestor or all humanity... it calls into question the premise of the question (bolded). The idea that Jesus died to pay a penalty... that isn't the only theory of atonement. And it certainly isn't the oldest theory of atonement that the church held. In the writings...

Jonah's a great example. Question - did Jonah die? Because some of the language in the book, taken literally, indicates that he did. While other verses don't seem to.