Any mainline Christians on here?

Post Reply New Topic

At least we can spell basic words like "about" and "longer" correctly you snob.

See, I think the Bible is problematic if it is NOT interpreted literally. A loose interpretation opens the Bible up to inconsistency and contradiction. We know the Bible doesn't contradict itself, so any interpretation that is contradictory is a false interpretation.

That said, a literal interpretation shows that metaphors are literally metaphors, wordplay is literally wordplay, and exaggeration is literally exaggeration. So then it's a matter of knowing which is which. Since the Bible is largely self-interpreting, it's not hard to figure it which is which. "Mountain-moving" faith, for instance, isn't about uprooting mountains and throwing them into the sea. It's about the ideal depth of Christian faith, to believe past the point at which physical obstacles and appearances become irrelevant.

I also find the concept of "little faith" comforting and inspiring. It doesn't take "big faith" to grow a kingdom of faith, to reach the world for Christ and see souls saved. I wonder if when Jesus said to Peter "oh, you of little faith" He meant "little faith" as a term of endearment. I've always heard that interpreted negatively, but I can't understand that if "little faith" is meant as a bad thing why it is Peter still reached and called out to Jesus to rescue him. Why do we doubt? Because we're human. We are not created to take anything on faith without evidence. The tiniest amount of faith is all that is required to save us from death. The ideal faith, that which keeps us above the waves, is something to aspire to and work towards. I don't think we're required to take great leaps of faith before we're ready. Only the first tiny step is required, and as we grow in faith we're able to take many more and ever increasing strides.

Oh? Were Jesus' parents originally from Judah, and did they run away to Egypt to avoid Herod's mass infanticide, and did they later move to Galilee (per Matthew)?

Or, is Luke right: his parents were originally from Galilee. To participate in a Roman census, his parents had to travel to Judah, where Mary gave birth to Jesus in a stable, after which they peacefully returned to Galilee? There was no mass infanticide, and no trips to Egypt.

False dichotomy. They're both right. They only differ as to what and how much of Jesus' life and extenuating circumstances they cover.

Ha, ha, ha!

Okay, here is one that you won't be able to explain away as a "false dichotomy" where both are right.

David's famous Census. 1 Chronicles 21 states that the total number of men capable of military service was 1,100,000 in Israel and 470,000 in Judah, not even counting the Levites and Benjaminites. 2 Samuel 24 has the numbers pegged at 800,000 in Israel and 500,000 in Judah. That's a discrepancy of some 20% in the final totals.

Do you really believe both of the reported figures to be accurate?

But taking everything one hundred percent literally can also give you a false interpretation, in particular, the book of Revelation. That book should be read with the understanding that it's written in the Apocalyptic language of ancient Persia, using many Greek figures of speech and metaphors. To not recognize this fact causes many denominations and individuals to have a very off kilter understanding of the book. That, and the assumption that most of Revelation deals with the end times causes a greater misinterpretation.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I wasn't aware of any connections to ancient Persia. Without getting into theological differences, the book of Revelation and also of Daniel are eschatological, and by the nature of eschatological writings are highly symbolic. In the case of eschatological works, at least when it comes to Biblical eschatology, the symbolism is either obvious to someone living at the time of the writing or the writer makes a point to explain what the symbols mean. For example, take the eye-covered wheels in Ezekiel. They represent the all-seeing nature of God. The ability to move in all directions without turning represents the all-present nature of God. The vision of the wheels indicate that the message given to Ezekiel in the vision is from God. A priest, prophet, or scholar wouldn't miss the meaning of the vision of the wheels. In Revelation, the symbols aren't always quite so clear. The seven candlesticks and the seven stars, for instance, are not so obvious. It's only when Jesus explains what the stars and candlesticks represent that we even know.

I've honestly never seen people similar to the third one in this dialogue here. Plenty of vocal #2 ones though.

I was baptized into the Roman Catholic church, so strictly speaking I still am a Christian. I even studied theology (and hold a masters degree in it), but started with doubts and lost the rest of my faith when one of my professors spent a year explaining to us why *he* didn't believe in miracles ... note, he was a Jesuit priest and basically excommunicated himself during every lecture by disavowing Roman Catholic dogma (such as the virgin birth).