The Metaphoric Explanation of the Holy Bible – Discovering True Christianity

[farouk]

Some things in Scripture are just not merely metaphorical.

 

[Giuliano]

There's no need for decisions. To the Hindu I am a Hindu. To the Jew I am a Jew. To the atheist, I am an atheist, but to you, I am a complete nobody with nothing better to do than troll the troller.

Before you ask who I am, you might want to ask yourself who you are because I can guarantee you, you are not who you think you are.

Imagine being able to talk to people like that! Seems to remind me of someone in the Bible. . . .

 

[shnarkle]

I don't see that you're a Christian in your member info.

A tree is known by the fruit it produces. Spiritual discernment doesn't come by scrutinizing labels.

Do you think that non-christians are one in Christ?

Christ said, "Apart from me, you can do nothing". He wasn't talking to Christians, and the only people you will find who even use this term are pagans, and they used it as a term of derision. That's how the term is presented in "God's word". The church, according to God's word the bible, referred to themselves as "the way". They adopted the exact same terminology that Christ used to refer to himself.

When Christ's own disciples returned from one of their outings, they informed Christ that they had prohibited people they didn't know from casting out demons in Christ's name. Christ pointed out that anyone who is not against us, is for us. Christ didn't pay much attention to superficial labels either.

When the religionists of Christ's day, asked what was necessary to attain salvation, he presented them with the HERETICAL Samaritan as his example. He does this repeatedly throughout the gospel narratives, e.g. the Centurion, the Syro-phoenician woman, etc. They're the one's who have faith, not those who are scrutinizing superficial labels to pass judgment upon others.

So, it's okay for you to insult me, but not vice versa?? Double standard.

The difference is that I'm not being insulting nor am I insulted. There is no double standard.

Asking me if I have a reading comprehension problem is not a personal attack?

I simply pointed out an irrefutable and empirical fact, which was that either you are a liar, or you have a reading comprehension problem. You made an accusation. You were mistaken, or you are a liar. Take your pick. I wasn't asking you if you had a reading comprehension problem. I was pointing out the fact that it was a distinct possibility. It is now more than likely a fact as you still seem to be unable to comprehend what I'm posting. You interpret a declarative statement as question, and in either case, neither one is an attack.

Anyone who conducts even a brief look at the content of your posts I just the last few days will find that they're extremely abusive, and bear no resemblance to anything that can be called "Christ like". The victimizers are always the biggest victims.

How do you know whether I have read it or not. Do you know me??

It is quite easy to see that you can't seem to comprehend a short, simple, straightforward post online. One doesn't need to know who someone is to see simple facts. As I pointed out before, it isn't important for me to know you, what's important is for you to know Christ, and it doesn't appear that you have any clue who you really are.

Going through life as an angry petulant triggered troll isn't a life at all. Let it go dude. Lighten up. Take a powder, or be ignored forever.

 

[shnarkle]

Some things in Scripture are just not merely metaphorical.

A figure of speech is not "merely metaphorical". Metaphors emphasize literal truths. When Jesus holds out bread in his hands and says, "This is my body", he's emphasizing something that is more literal than just the fact that the bread is in his disciples. He's emphasizing that he is in his disciples. He's emphasizing that he must be broken like the bread, he must be pierced with holes like the bread, He's emphasizing that just like the bread sustains them, he too will sustain them, etc.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

A tree is known by the fruit it produces. Spiritual discernment doesn't come by scrutinizing labels.



Christ said, "Apart from me, you can do nothing". He wasn't talking to Christians, and the only people you will find who even use this term are pagans, and they used it as a term of derision. That's how the term is presented in "God's word". The church, according to God's word the bible, referred to themselves as "the way". They adopted the exact same terminology that Christ used to refer to himself.

When Christ's own disciples returned from one of their outings, they informed Christ that they had prohibited people they didn't know from casting out demons in Christ's name. Christ pointed out that anyone who is not against us, is for us. Christ didn't pay much attention to superficial labels either.

When the religionists of Christ's day, asked what was necessary to attain salvation, he presented them with the HERETICAL Samaritan as his example. He does this repeatedly throughout the gospel narratives, e.g. the Centurion, the Syro-phoenician woman, etc. They're the one's who have faith, not those who are scrutinizing superficial labels to pass judgment upon others.




The difference is that I'm not being insulting nor am I insulted. There is no double standard.




I simply pointed out an irrefutable and empirical fact, which was that either you are a liar, or you have a reading comprehension problem. You made an accusation. You were mistaken, or you are a liar. Take your pick. I wasn't asking you if you had a reading comprehension problem. I was pointing out the fact that it was a distinct possibility. It is now more than likely a fact as you still seem to be unable to comprehend what I'm posting. You interpret a declarative statement as question, and in either case, neither one is an attack.

Anyone who conducts even a brief look at the content of your posts I just the last few days will find that they're extremely abusive, and bear no resemblance to anything that can be called "Christ like". The victimizers are always the biggest victims.




It is quite easy to see that you can't seem to comprehend a short, simple, straightforward post online. One doesn't need to know who someone is to see simple facts. As I pointed out before, it isn't important for me to know you, what's important is for you to know Christ, and it doesn't appear that you have any clue who you really are.

Going through life as an angry petulant triggered troll isn't a life at all. Let it go dude. Lighten up. Take a powder, or be ignored forever.

I apologized to you, and you’re justifying your rudeness. Good luck with that!

 

[Giuliano]

But I think my point about the Talmud was valid.

Was it? Can you explain why Jesus told Jews to obey whatever the Sanhedrin told them to do? Couldn't people read the Bible and know what to do on their own?

And why did Paul say the Jews have an advantage over the Gentiles which he called the "oracles" -- meaning "oral" things not written things?

Romans 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

A figure of speech is not "merely metaphorical". Metaphors emphasize literal truths. When Jesus holds out bread in his hands and says, "This is my body", he's emphasizing something that is more literal than just the fact that the bread is in his disciples. He's emphasizing that he is in his disciples. He's emphasizing that he must be broken like the bread, he must be pierced with holes like the bread, He's emphasizing that just like the bread sustains them, he too will sustain them, etc.

A metaphor is a type of figurative language. It is a comparison of dissimilar things without the use of "like" or "as." A simile uses the terms "like" or "as" in the comparison.

Metaphor: The moon is a silver dollar.
Simile: The moon is like a silver dollar.

Obviously, Jesus was using metaphor in this statement when He said His body is the bread. He also used metaphor when He said He is the gate (John 10:7) and the door (John 10:9), etc.

I agree with you that Jesus was teaching His disciples literal truths through His use of metaphor.
.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Was it? Can you explain why Jesus told Jews to obey whatever the Sanhedrin told them to do? Couldn't people read the Bible and know what to do on their own?

Matt 23:1-4--The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3So practice and observe everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up heavy, burdensome loads and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.…

Jesus told His followers to do as the scribes and Pharisees said because they upheld the law with their speech. They were the authorities on the law (seated in the chair of Moses). But they did not uphold it with their actions. They talked the talk, but didn't walk the walk.

I believe that part of the burden Jesus was talking about in this verse had to do with the Jewish traditions, i.e. the traditions of men which Jesus criticized. Men added to God's Word with their traditions and made the law even more complex and burdensome than what God had actually spoken. Also, I believe that the law itself presented a burden which Jesus lifted by fulfilling the law.

I seriously doubt that the average person of that day had a copy of the scriptures. We see in Acts that the Bereans did, but I would imagine that this could have been an exception.
.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

And why did Paul say the Jews have an advantage over the Gentiles which he called the "oracles" -- meaning "oral" things not written things?

Romans 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

The following is from the Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown Commentary on verse 2:

2. Much every way; chiefly, because--rather, "first, that" unto them were committed the oracles of God--This remarkable expression, denoting "divine communications" in general, is transferred to the Scriptures to express their oracular, divine, authoritative character.
​

According to this commentary, the word oracles is referring to "'divine communications' in general."

Like I've told you, I think that it's a mistake to place an emphasis on the oral above the written version of God's Word. In English the word oracle doesn't necessarily denote an oral expression. And Strong's says that oracle used in the NT can mean "the words or utterances of God." So, there again, this could include God's written word.
.

 

[bbyrd009]

ha, Protestants are the very worst i think lol

 

[Giuliano]

The following is from the Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown Commentary on verse 2:

2. Much every way; chiefly, because--rather, "first, that" unto them were committed the oracles of God--This remarkable expression, denoting "divine communications" in general, is transferred to the Scriptures to express their oracular, divine, authoritative character.
​

According to this commentary, the word oracles is referring to "'divine communications' in general."

Like I've told you, I think that it's a mistake to place an emphasis on the oral above the written version of God's Word. In English the word oracle doesn't necessarily denote an oral expression. And Strong's says that oracle used in the NT can mean "the words or utterances of God." So, there again, this could include God's written word.
.

If you think "oral" can mean "written," what can I say?

 

[Prayer Warrior]

If you think "oral" can mean "written," what can I say?

I'm saying "divine communications" can be oral or written.

 

[Giuliano]

I'm saying "divine communications" can be oral or written.

I think you need to come to terms with the idea that "oracles" means something oral.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

I think you need to come to terms with the idea that "oracles" means something oral.

The commentary I quoted doesn't seem to be saying this. Are you assuming that oracle denotes oral?

Here's what I posted:

The following is from the Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown Commentary on verse 2:​

2. Much every way; chiefly, because--rather, "first, that" unto them were committed the oracles of God--This remarkable expression, denoting "divine communications" in general, is transferred to the Scriptures to express their oracular, divine, authoritative character.​

According to this commentary, the word oracles is referring to "'divine communications' in general."
​

When I checked out the definition of oracle and oracular, there is nothing about "oral" communication, only divine communication.

I would like to know what you have to say about this. I think it's important because you seem to place more importance on the oral Word of God than the written.

 

[Earburner]

It is said that Quran was revealed to Muhammad by angel Gabriel. But here it is important to understand that even Gabriel is a personification of the Holy Spirit and the revelation by Gabriel is hence symbolic. There are a lot of such symbols in scriptures.

However, historians do agree that Jesus was a historical person. Two incidents which are considered as absolutely real are his baptism by John and his crucifixion.

It is apparent that you are a "religionist" , attempting to unify the different "religions" of the world, as being equal to Christianity. In so doing, you are comparing apples to oranges, and neither are the same.

The Religions of the world speak of how to ASCEND to God, whereas Christianity is about Jesus, who DESCENDED from God, and dwelt among us.
Jesus is the Word, made to be flesh. John 1:1-14; John 3:16-18

Furthermore:
1 John 4[2] Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
[3] And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
2 John 1[7] For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

 

[Giuliano]

The commentary I quoted doesn't seem to be saying this. Are you assuming that oracle denotes oral?

Here's what I posted:

The following is from the Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown Commentary on verse 2:​

2. Much every way; chiefly, because--rather, "first, that" unto them were committed the oracles of God--This remarkable expression, denoting "divine communications" in general, is transferred to the Scriptures to express their oracular, divine, authoritative character.​

According to this commentary, the word oracles is referring to "'divine communications' in general."​

When I checked out the definition of oracle and oracular, there is nothing about "oral" communication, only divine communication.

I would like to know what you have to say about this. I think it's important because you seem to place more importance on the oral Word of God than the written.

The word in Greek is "logion" and it is related to the word "logos."

Here is a link to it at Blue Bible: logion. Even in English, the connection between "oral" and "oracle" should be enough, I'd think.

I also think it should be fairly clear that "Gentiles" have a disadvantage according to Paul, since they do not have the "oracles." As a student of Gamaliel, Paul would have received some of them.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

The word in Greek is "logion" and it is related to the word "logos."

Here is a link to it at Blue Bible: logion. Even in English, the connection between "oral" and "oracle" should be enough, I'd think.

I also think it should be fairly clear that "Gentiles" have a disadvantage according to Paul, since they do not have the "oracles." As a student of Gamaliel, Paul would have received some of them.

I understand what you're saying, but the Bible commentary I quoted doesn't agree with you on oracles being oral.

Only Gentiles who are not saved would have a disadvantage. Why do we need the oracles when we have Jesus?? We are complete in Him, nothing missing.

Colossians 2:9-10--For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily form. 10And you have been made complete in Christ, who is the head over every ruler and authority.
.

 

[Giuliano]

I understand what you're saying, but the Bible commentary I quoted doesn't agree with you on oracles being oral.

I cannot account for what your commentary may say. I'd recommend getting a different one.

Only Gentiles who are not saved would have a disadvantage. Why do we need the oracles when we have Jesus??

That would be something you might ask Paul about.

We are complete in Him, nothing missing.

Colossians 2:9-10--For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily form. 10And you have been made complete in Christ, who is the head over every ruler and authority.
.

I wonder why he felt the need to write to them then. I read that as Paul exaggerating a bit. After all, in the rest of the book he gives advice to them that indicates to me they hadn't reached a state of perfection yet.

Colossians 3:5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:
6 For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:
7 In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them.
8 But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.
9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;
10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:

 

[Prayer Warrior]

I wonder why he felt the need to write to them then. I read that as Paul exaggerating a bit. After all, in the rest of the book he gives advice to them that indicates to me they hadn't reached a state of perfection yet.

Colossians 3:5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:
6 For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:
7 In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them.
8 But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.
9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;
10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:

I don't believe that Paul exaggerated in the least. Isn't that a form of lying?

Paul often stated the reality of our two natures (the "old man" and the "new man"). Just look at what he says in the verse you quoted.

We are to mortify (put to death) our members....
We have put off the old man and put on the new man....
​

This is a dichotomy (seeming contradiction).

 

[Giuliano]

I don't believe that Paul exaggerated in the least. Isn't that a form of lying?

Paul often stated the reality of our two natures (the "old man" and the "new man"). Just look at what he says in the verse you quoted.

We are to mortify (put to death) our members....
We have put off the old man and put on the new man....
​

This is a dichotomy (seeming contradiction). Why would we need to mortify our members when we have put off the old man with his deeds and put on the new man?? The best answer I can give is that we just need to do what Paul says.

Here's the verse in the HCSB, which is the version I usually use.

Therefore, put to death what belongs to your worldly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desire, and greed, which is idolatry. Because of these, God’s wrath comes on the disobedient, and you once walked in these things when you were living in them. But now you must also put away all the following: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and filthy language from your mouth. Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old self with its practices and have put on the new self.
​

--put to death what belongs to your worldly nature (old man/self)...
--you have put off the old self with its practices and have put on the new self

I don't know what else I can say at this time. Maybe @Enoch111 can explain this better than I can. :)
.

It beats me why he said they were "complete" while telling them they still needed to work at things.

Paul obviously exaggerates at times, like when he said the love of money is the root of all evil.