Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   If the Bible is metaphorical then perhaps so is the God of the Bible
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 241 of 243 (516771)
07-27-2009 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by ochaye
07-27-2009 11:43 AM


That's no reason to banish poor Eve, though, who, in your unique version of events, witnessed a miracle and believed, as later commended and commanded by Jesus. She had no reason to suppose that the person you call Satan was not actually God, and good reason to suppose that he was God.
It seems to me that a lot of religious people make that mistake.
What was latter commended and commanded by Jesus ? What are you refering to?
The way I read it there was a line. That line was not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
She could talk about it. She could sing about it. She could discuss it. She could make a poem about it if she wanted. She could do anything except eat of it.
When the couple ate of the tree they were no longer innocent. They were then rebels. The rebels come under the authority of Satan. He is the authority over all creatures who are in rebellion against God.
When they ate, they stepped over the line. It is not simply that they disobeyed and were guilty. They were also poisoned. A foreign and alien element entered into their being. They were constituted with an evil nature.
I have said before here that this is like a mother telling a child not to drink a certain bottle of poison. If the child drinks it the child has two problems. First the child has disobeyed the mother. Second the child has received poison into them.
On this second point, God expelled them from the garden so that having been constitited with the Satanic poison, they would not subsequently partake of the tree of life and live forever in this hellish state:
"And Jehovah God said, Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat and live forever -
Therefore Jehovah God sent him forth from the garden of Eden ... So He drove the man out, and at the east of the garden of Eden He placed the cherubim and a flaming sword which turned in every direction to guard the way to the tree of life." (See Gen. 3:22-24)
And now allow me to indulge in some allegorization.
The flaming sword of the cherubim guarded the way to the tree of life. Three matters are represented here -
The cherubim represent the glory of God.
The sword represents the rightouesness of God.
The flame of the sword represents the holiness of God.
I will not at this time lend supporting passages to demonstrate this kind of interpretation. But God had a threefold demand on the sinful human race. They fall short of God's glory and of God's righteousness and of God's holiness.
The demand for these three must be fulfilled to return the created man to the Eternal and divine life of God represented in the tree of life. The rest of the Bible unfolds how God meets this need to justify man before His glory, His righteousness, and His holiness.
Man moved from a state of innocency into a state of revolt, rebellion, and emnity against God.
You don't think so ?
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by ochaye, posted 07-27-2009 11:43 AM ochaye has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 242 of 243 (519088)
08-11-2009 8:02 AM


jaywill, you sound like a jehovah's witness - they believe in things coming in two's (god for a start, Adam and Eve - correct me if I'm wrong) and three's, and have the same sort of...rationalization, compartmentalization that lets them say "it doesn't matter whether it was true, but it's true because the people in the bible believed it was true, and they wouldn't lie, because they're in the bible, which is true..."
it's circular logic - the original question was how do christians know what is really true and what is meant to be allegory?. saying "it's true but it doesn't matter" is poorly side-stepping the point.
biblical literalists put their own made-up dates on everything, and blind themselves so much that they insist that Noah really existed, that his ark really existed, and that it was big enough to carry everything (including dinosaurs) despite having a known size which wasn't even big enough to carry the food necessary.
They believe the miracles like the feeding of the five thousand with even less questioning.
The rest of us are rightly uncomfortable with this position, because then it's believing in a magic sky-daddy that has apparently lost his powers and can no longer even do the smallest of miracles, or who turns a blind eye to suffering, or who simply doesn't answer all prayers like he said he would, or...well I could go on.
The empty answer given to that is "god works in mysterious ways".
you're right in that the whole bible is written (with a few obvious exceptions) as fact, but those facts don't stand up to modern day knowledge - the world is older than 6000 years, it's not flat, animals don't become stripy by looking at stripy objects, people don't rise from the dead, and only ignorance lets people believe the opposite.

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 243 of 243 (519130)
08-11-2009 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by jaywill
07-09-2009 9:54 PM


Uncle Paul was a ToRaH observant practitioner of the Yuhdaic traditions
Thank you for the exchange brutha jay.
Hope things are well with you ...
brutha jay writes:
weary writes:
brutha jay writes:
weary writes:
I have noticed that you hang the majority of your interpretations on Paul's coat hook ...
God used the man to write 13 or so books of the 27 New Testament books.
God did not consult with me for permission to do so. Neither did He ask for your advice. Since He places the members in the Body as it pleases Him, we should just say AMEN, and submit ourselves to God's sovereign arrangement.
The Apostle Peter recommended Paul's wisdom (2 Peter 3:15,16). I don't know why you would not.
lol - now, now ...
I never said that I would not ol' friend. However, the doctrines and subsequent theologies which must continue to evolve from the remains of uncle Paul's letters have always been highly subjective and their volatility often remains unpredictable. Consider Kefa's very own words in the verse you quoted ...
Some things in these letters are hard to understand ...
Things the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they also do to the rest of the scriptures.
So, uncle Paul's letters are frequently inclined to misinterpretation according to even the Apostle Kefa. There is the sense one may understand them more clearly with some extensive formal training in the original testament Yuhdaic traditions, such as the pretense they were written under.
The key phrase there is as they do the REST of Scripture.
You don't avoid the rest of Scripture because ignorant and unstable people twist it do you?
Apologies for the delay brutha jay. First of all - what good does downplaying the dangers associated with uncle Paul's writings serve, when it has been established directly as an issue within canonized scripture texts? Second of all, I am entertaining discussion with all the other Levites, aren't I - lol?
Those who cherry pick any & all verses at their disposal to convince all others that Joshua's murder was a necessary Levitical animal sacrifice.
No brutha jay - by the strength given me from the Father, I no longer avoid scripture because of ignorant and unstable people. Thank the Father.
brutha jay writes:
weary writes:
So, uncle Paul's letters are frequently inclined to misinterpretation according to even the Apostle Kefa. There is the sense one may understand them more clearly with some extensive formal training in the original testament Yuhdaic traditions, such as the pretense they were written under.
Experience in the spiritual walk is a vital ingredient.
Yea - what does this mean tho? Please explain what you are trying to convey.
Of course one is free to remain a subject to ignorance, supposing that Paul - the Pharisee of Pharisees - was, somehow, not a ToRaH observant practitioner within the Yuhdaic traditions.
Perhaps understanding the customs of the Pharisees (the vital ingredient you speak of?) may shed some light on their spiritual walk ...
And while we are on the subject of possible misunderstandings, I sure have to think twice about who you are talking about because of your insistance in using Hebrew names.
Kefa ??? Oh, that's Peter I guess. Excuse my naivete of Hebrew names here.
Btw, uncle Paul was indeed a Pharisee - there is no getting around this solid fact, regardless of any disdain towards Hebraic roots one may harbor.
While I am not Jewish, it is my conviction that uncle Paul was a lifelong ToRaH observant Jew of the sect of the Pharisees who accepted Joshua as Lord.
Now, as an aside, the Hebrew word ToRaH appears many hundreds of times in the OT and is almost always translated into the English word ‘law’. However, this is a poor translation mainly because the comparison we entertain with the Western concepts of law. Many will probably visualize policeman, tickets, judges, courts, fines and jail sentences when they hear the word 'law'. The word 'ToRaH' implies none of these things.
ToRaH is derived from the root word yarah which literally means ‘to flow as water’. Figuratively it means ‘to point out’, to teach, to inform, to instruct or perhaps to show. There is the sense that ToRaH could be best defined in English as ‘instruction’, and that is, the Father's instruction to humankind.
Once one gets a grasp of this concept (that the first five books of the Bible are not meant to threaten us but rather to instruct us in righteous living - and that, according to the Prophet Yirmiyahu, the documents have indeed been tampered with) perhaps they can begin to relax a little bit. Now instead of seeing the Father as a policeman waiting for us to break one of His laws - or teachings, so that He can punish us, we have the picture of a loving Father instructing His children in how to live a life that will be both a blessing to us as children and an honor to our devoted Father.
Now, back to uncle Paul - first, he belonged to one of the most strict sects within the Yuhdaic traditions.
quote:
Philippians 3:5
"I was circumcised on the eighth day, from the people of Yisrael and the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews ..."
Acts of the Apostles 23:6
"... Brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee ... "
Listen to this - he did not say, 'I was a Pharisee', he said, 'I am a Pharisee ...'.
Secondly, uncle Paul studied under the head of the Sanhedrin (the highest court in Yuhdea).
quote:
Acts of the Apostles 22:3
... but brought up in this city [Yirusalem], educated with strictness under Gamaliel according to the law of our ancestors ...
So we see, Paul was most likely a member of the Sanhedrin, as evidenced by the following scripture, which fits perfectly the Yuhdaic practice of stoning ...
quote:
Acts of the Apostles 7:58
'And cast him [Stephen] out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man’s feet whose name was Saul [Paul/Sha’ul].
Since it was the responsibility of the members of the Sanhedrin to witness public stonings, there seems to be very little reason to suppose that uncle Paul was not present, in an official capacity, at the stoning, while those who were witnesses against Stephen were required to cast the stones.
Third, it was the habit of uncle Paul to attend synagogue every Sabbath.
quote:
Acts of the Apostles 17:1-2
... came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures ...
Fourth, uncle Paul upheld Yudaic circumcision.
quote:
Acts of the Apostles 16:1,3
... behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:
... Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek
.
Paul observed the custom of the Jews, which was that all Jewish males had to be physically circumcised. This is the case as presented in scripture texts, despite the fact that he was the primary one who taught that Goyim - or gentiles, need not be circumcised in order to fellowship with those within the Yuhdaic traditions of the day who had accepted Joshua as the Anointed One.
And so, as far as I'm concerned, there appears to be no contradiction here at all. Uncle Paul was a ToRaH observant Jew - a Pharisee studying under the Sanhedrin. If he had not circumcised Timothy, he would have stood in direct conflict both with the ToRaH and Yuhdaic tradition because Timothy, being a Jew, needed to observe the customs of the Jews. Timothy was not a Goyim.
Fifth, if uncle Paul was a ToRaH observant practitioner within the Yuhdaic traditions he would definitely be keeping their festivals, which is what the following two scriptures plainly indicate ...
quote:
Acts of the Apostles 20:16
... for he hasted, if it were possible for him, to be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost.
1st Corinthians 5:7
... For even the Anointed One, our Passover ....
This can go on and on, and we could perhaps discuss the vow he had taken which required him to cut his hair - or 'shorn his head', in Cenchrea, as he left Corinth on his way to Syria (Acts of the Apostles 18:18).
You don't suppose that was a Nazarite vow, do you??
quote:
Numbers 6:2-6,13-18
"... When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the LORD: He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried. All the days of his separation shall he eat nothing that is made of the vine tree, from the kernels even to the husk. All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no razor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled, in the which he separateth himself unto the LORD, he shall be holy, and shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow. All the days that he separateth himself unto the LORD he shall come at no dead body.
And this is the law of the Nazarite, when the days of his separation are fulfilled: he shall be brought unto the door of the tabernacle (the Temple in uncle Paul's day) of the congregation: And he shall offer his offering unto the LORD, one he lamb of the first year without blemish for a burnt offering, and one ewe lamb of the first year without blemish for a sin offering, and one ram without blemish for peace offerings, And a basket of unleavened bread, cakes of fine flour mingled with oil, and wafers of unleavened bread anointed with oil, and their meal offering, and their drink offerings.
And the Nazarite shall shave the head of his separation at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall take the hair of the head of his separation, and put it in the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace offerings
."

Perhaps it was another vow aside from this, although one can be all but certain that uncle Paul was not swearing a Levitical Catholic vow - lol
Much less, a vow within any of the innumerable off-shoots she has spawned (Levitical Protestantism, Levitical Mormonism, Levitical JW, etc.).
Please, don't tease me anymore - if you have evidence to suggest that uncle Paul was not a ToRaH abiding Pharisee, present it accordingly.
Otherwise, please explain why you are unable or unwilling to plainly concede that he most likely was?
Then we can talk about 'the Apostle Paul's strategic military moves for world domination' - lol
Looking forward to hearing from you brutha ...
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : sp.
Edited by Bailey, : link scripture texts
Edited by Bailey, : sp.
Edited by Bailey, : metanonia

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by jaywill, posted 07-09-2009 9:54 PM jaywill has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024