Summations Only

As is the bible.

Flat mate? Is that me. I'm a guy. I like Tangle but not that way. I'm married, to a women.
Not that It matters a whit, but if you call me a flat mate.. then I'm going to give a shit.)))

I was referring to the girl Tangle shared a flat with. I apologize ahead of time if I missed a joke. But I've already told you that I don't subscribe to your conspiracy accusation.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I'm very much a part of the unwashed laity. Personally I accept the story of the virgin birth but at the same time I know that it does read like a legend. It isn't in all of the Gospels and it isn't in the Epistles so I accept that it could have been written as a metaphor for how they understood the life and times of Jesus.In parables such as "The Prodigal Son" it doesn't start out saying that this is a parable. We just know that it is. Let's assume that the story of the nativity is a legend. Just as we can find levels of relevance in the parables as told by Jesus we can find levels of meaning in the nativity narrative that are relevant to our lives today. It is a story of humble beginnings, it's a story of regardless of the humble beginnings He was still worshipped by earthly Kings, it's a story where this humble being was infused with wisdom and truth through God's Holy Spirit, it's a story where the first worshippers were simple shepherds etc. In fact the whole nativity narrative reflects Jesus' entire ministry.So yes, if I were a preacher preaching on the nativity and/or the virgin birth, I would preach it as an historical event, even though I accept that it might not be historically true. However, even if it isn't historical it is still the truth as would be understood by the author. I would do this in the same manner as I would as if I were preaching on the Prodigal Son.

Yes that's how the myth continue. Just like Santa Clause - the adults don't believe it but they make sure their children do.

I find myself agreeing with Tangle's opinion of what you are doing here. Your personal understanding is that the Prodigal Son is a parable while the virgin birth is accurate though you admit to some doubts about the latter.So what would justify preaching similarly on the two stories? I find that admission outright bizarre. I understand how you feel the way you do about the two stories. No problem with that. Have you ever found yourself presenting or preaching on the virgin birth?

I'm not sure what the issue would be related to that?

I'm really sorry if that is the case to any great extent. I believe it all myself, as adults do at least among the born again Protestant groups I consider myself part of, so I wanted to weigh in here on that. A lot of us do believe all these supernatural things, as well as the traditional claims about authorship of all the gospels and other NT books.I understand it's hard for modern man to accept such things, they are practically the definition of myth to the modern mind. I did a blog post on that and related things recently. You many not be interested but mayge somebody is: Christianity, a Fairy Tale Come True?.I mention among other things how startling it can be to discover that what you thought was a myth is actually reality. I mention a few Christians but I also remember being extremely startled myself long before I was Christian to read in a literary magazine a German scholar's willingness to consider that the old explanation of demons as the cause of mental illness might have something to it. He wasn't a Christian and I don't remember his name but just the way he said it so matter-of-factly, a literary scholar actually thinking demons might be real, is that kind of very startling experience that can completely change a person's perspective. It didn't change mine at that point though I couldn't get it out of my mind.

There might not be an issue for you. I'm curious about how GDR would handle the question.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Faith,
Are you cognizant that most evil spirits in the bible come from god?

Evil spirits are fallen angels.

It's by far the majority that do it. Evangelicals that believe in the literal truth of the bible are thankfully a small minority.Over this holiday the nativity story was repeatedly told from pulpits all over the land despite the fact that it's all known to be a nonsense historically. Why do we do this when it's no more factual than Rudolf's story? Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Just curious what evidence you have that the true believers are the minority? The "liberal" churches that compromise the Bible aren't anywhere near as numerous as the "fundamentalist" type churches, the independent Bible churches and so on. Of course the situation may be different in the UK.

How many times does this need to be said and demonstrated? Those that believe in the inerrancy of the bible are a very small minority. The majority churches of mainstream Catholicism and Anglicism accept such things as evolution and the alegorical nature of the bible. I don't have access to the statistics atm, but you've been shown them many times. (And please don't resort to the tautology of defining a Christian as someone who believes in what you believe in.)

Yes, silly of me. I do forget about Catholicism and even the liberal Anglicans. Shouldn't have asked. It's clear the true Christian churches believe as they should. Sorry, way it goes.