Originally posted by Alliance
Thats debatable, but it would be an incorrectly translated allegory nonetheless.
It certainly is debatable...but my response to that is this...
According to Christian Mythology (So we're assuming that it's all true):
The Son was the spirit that spoke throughout the Old Testament not The Father, as when the Son became Man (Jesus) he declared that noone has seen nor heard The Father, but they have heard him from the dawn of time. Now, if we look at Jesus in his ministry he taught via stories and parables...so why would he not teach in parables in the Old Testament? Why the change?
Sadly, I'm still working on that so dont have allot of depth, but I think it has substance...Cardinal O'Brien seems to agree with this theory.
Oh and there is debate still over whether it is Sea of Reeds or Red Sea...
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
The Son was the spirit that spoke throughout the Old Testament not The Father, as when the Son became Man (Jesus) he declared that noone has seen nor heard The Father, but they have heard him from the dawn of time. Now, if we look at Jesus in his ministry he taught via stories and parables...so why would he not teach in parables in the Old Testament? Why the change?
because half is mean to tbe a history and the other half the foundation for a cult.
Originally posted by chickenlover98
ill take whatever i get. but eternal is a lil much dont ya think. if hell exists there should be levels of punishment. not a one size fits all kinda thing
Tell you what, you go read up on Christian Mythology then come back and make statements like that...I recommend Dante to start with...
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Tell you what, you go read up on Christian Mythology then come back and make statements like that...I recommend Dante to start with...
Problem with that is, most anyone who reads up on Christian Mythology in any depth returns as a non-Christian.
...not that that's a problem with Alliance though...
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Well, considering how "democracy" has panned out...your correct.
I'm just saying that there's something inherently untrustyworthy about the concept that there are some things the average guy shouldn't know about god, himself. The idea that there are some in the world who are smart enough (or delusional enough) to know something that the rest of the world just shouldn't, because it might get misunderstood, is what's wrong with religion.
Originally posted by Devil King
I'm just saying that there's something inherently untrustyworthy about the concept that there are some things the average guy shouldn't know about god, himself. The idea that there are some in the world who are smart enough (or delusional enough) to know something that the rest of the world just shouldn't, because it might get misunderstood, is what's wrong with religion.
No no no,
Everyone should have the right to know everything there is to know about God, however, these "facts" about God should not come from every Tom, Dick and Harry who decides to read Scripture and assume to understand it, but from people who have put a large amount of study into the scripture, its meanings, its context etc etc.
For example you'd ask an expert on computers to solve a technical problem you have before the neighbor...
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
No no no,Everyone should have the right to know everything there is to know about God, however, these "facts" about God should not come from every Tom, Dick and Harry who decides to read Scripture and assume to understand it, but from people who have put a large amount of study into the scripture, its meanings, its context etc etc.
For example you'd ask an expert on computers to solve a technical problem you have before the neighbor...
And what happens when the "informed" or the "educated" are wrong too? You can't always rely on someone because they have the title of professor.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_GavThat's an interesting view. It makes sense too if Jesus is the author of the Old Testament as many say that he is. Yes, why the change? I do believe the beginning book of Genesis is an allegory, especially Adam and Eve and the story of Noah.
It certainly is debatable...but my response to that is this...According to Christian Mythology (So we're assuming that it's all true):
The Son was the spirit that spoke throughout the Old Testament not The Father, as when the Son became Man (Jesus) he declared that noone has seen nor heard The Father, but they have heard him from the dawn of time. Now, if we look at Jesus in his ministry he taught via stories and parables...so why would he not teach in parables in the Old Testament? Why the change?
Sadly, I'm still working on that so dont have allot of depth, but I think it has substance...Cardinal O'Brien seems to agree with this theory.
Oh and there is debate still over whether it is Sea of Reeds or Red Sea...
Oh, and I would have to say that if god wanted to have a book written then god would make sure it could be understood by the common man. It is a message for man, correct?