If the Bible is metaphorical then perhaps so is the God of the Bible

It is not a matter of how it speaks to just me personally. It is a matter of how it speaks to millions of people over the last two millennia who by God's mercy, have experience.All of the letters were written to churches or particular Christians. Check the opening salutations to every one of them. I hope you do know what the passage means.It takes more than a clever mind to get into the depths of some of these things Paul wrote. That is not simply my concept. That is what the fellow apostle Peter wrote basically about Paul's writings. I have known many people who were intellegent yet unstable who misunderstood and twisted Scriptures, including Scriptures written by the Apostle Paul.That is all I mean. And I hope you fair better than they. I don't know what D'rashed means. Is that "trashed"?Whatever, I am so glad that this Christian brother Paul fulfilled his ministry. He did certainly turn out to be just as Jesus proclaimed he would be - "a chosen vessel". Jesus told the reluctant Ananias: We praise God then for this "chosen vessel" who delivered to us so gracious a portion of the New Testament.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The Bible exposes Satan and makes him naked to the light of truth. What you are doing is acting on behalf of Satan, rushing to cover him up and hide him in obscurity.I just have to tell you bluntly what's going on. You are doing the service of Satan, trying to hide Satan and rescue Satan from being exposed.A more effective Bible Study with the serpent himself could hardly do a better job to obscure the plain truth.

Aren't you showing a rather sleazy debating tactic of your own by over generalizing what I wrote?You can't quote me on making such a broad statement, so why misrepresent what I said?My comment was limited to the laboring, as I perceive the poster was doing, in concealing (obscuring) the presence of Satan, where it should be obvious that that is who is meant.For the record, not everyone who disagrees with me is doing the bidding of Satan. Some of them may even be right to disagree with me.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Maybe it was not decorous to a sterile intellectual game - ie. a supposedly friendly game of "Bible Ball".This may come as a shock to you. But the Bible does not exist simply as an intellectual curiosity. This book was not developed over 1600 years simply to tickle some people's intellectual curiosityThere is an actual spiritual warfare going on. What is needed is to see the enemy where he is exposed.Labors that I have seen to conceal and obscure him remind me of the propoganda footage of Hitler during the Holocaust. The vidoes showed such a docile kindly gentleman strolling along with his girlfriend. How could he possibly be of danger to anyone?A similar propoganda is going on with those - "Oh, that has nothing to do with any enemy of God. Oh that is not about Satan at all."I seek balance not extremes. He's certainly not the only subject of the whole Bible. But neither is it helpful to labor to hide his activity where it is plainly exposed.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I know. Wide is the gate and broad is the way. Where? Where?

Socialogically it is not that easy to define what a "cult" is. Maybe a "cult" is defined as a group of people you are afraid of.That is in the realm of socialogy, even socialogy of relious movements.I am not sure what you mean about worshipping the blood of Christ. At the Lord's Table He told His disciples to do something in rememberance of Him. I have to think about it. Does that mean they disciples are "worshipping" the blood? Not sure.Transubstantiation I regard as superstitious.Christians I meet with believe in the redemptive work of Christ and praise and thank God for it. A shorthand way of refering to that redemptive work is speaking of "the precious blood", certainly a phrase that the Apostle Peter used.Whether a typical prayer like "Lord we thankyou for your precious blood shed for our redemption" constitutes worshipping the blood, I am not certain it is. It certainly is worshipping Jesus.I the present time I lean a little more on the side of it being "remembering" what Jesus did for us on the cross.I often "apply" the blood of Jesus to my conscience in prayer. This is mandatory, I think, for a healthy spiritual life. Our concience is often offended or under condemnation or accusation of the enemy. Sometimes there is cause. Sometime there is little cause.To have peace within I pray about the blood of Christ. For the Scripture said "How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God." (Hebrews 9:14)The mention of the blood really is a shorthand for remembering His redemptive death. And it does put the troubled conscience in the sweetest peace. I am not sure if that is worshipping the blood. I am inclined to say it is worshipping Jesus Christ and recalling all that He is and has done, and even is doing.I can think of no passage telling us to worship the blood of Christ. I can think of passages telling us to worship Him. And we do pass the cup of wine or grape juice at His table in rememberance that He redeemed us with the shedding of His blood.I guess what I am saying that at present I see that the Christian's object of adoration and worship is the resurrected and living Christ. The mentioning and praying about His blood is a kind of shorthand referance to His redemptive death for our sins.The power of recalling in faith the blood of Christ deals with three areas of need:1.) Real guilt before God (genuine conviction from the Holy Spirit)
2.) Self condemnation (with or without real basis in fact)
3.) Accusation from the Devil (with or without basis in fact)Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I think Matthew 23:35 merely about Jesus warning the opposing religionists. They persecuted all the Old Testament prophets from Abel to Zachariah the son of Barachiah.I do not what you mean by "blood libel". You'll have to explain what you mean by that phrase. We have to regard His death on the cross as part of His ministry. And without the shedding of His blood there is no forgiveness of sins. And He made this point emphatic when He instituted the table meeting and said: In Luke He used the phrase "new covenant". So the New Testament ministry has an important emphasis on Christ shedding His blood for the forgiveness of sinners. If He had not done so there would be no forgiveness. And if we had to answer to God for one sin we would be undone. I don't think we would ever make it to be His.The blood of Jesus Christ God's Son cleanses us from every sin. In this reply I have not yet heard what you mean by "blood libel".Concerning the effectiveness of all that Christ is and has done - it is in the Holy Spirit. Any "power of the blood" is effetive to sinners because they receive the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit is Christ in another form. He is Christ in His pneumatic form: Physical objects do not convey any spiritual life to people. All the blessing is conveyed to us through the Holy Spirit being dispensed into our human spirit. This is too deep of a question for me to solve in one post. However, I think to remember Him means to recall that stage in God's history when He was incarnated and lived as a flesh and blood man with us on the earth. "The Word became flesh and tabernacled among us ...".Of course this Man Jesus Christ is today exalted to the throne of God and still a man. But He is now a man in glory with a golirified resurrection body, one which we also as believers in Christ will one day have.But to remember Him I think has to do with never forgetting that period of time in which God was incarnated in the Son and born, lived, died and resurrected being among us. The disciples are to remember this until He comes again in glory with His glorified resurrected divine body. I'm not sure if I follow you here. One could be impressed that way. The Holy Spirit may impress any number of things upon our hearts as we worship the Lord Jesus.The significance of what He is and what He has done will take eternity to appreciate. Catholicism teaches that the wafer when put in the mouth actually becomes the body of Jesus. And they teach that the wine taken into the mouth actually becomes the blood of Jesus.I regard this as not true and superstitious. Catholicism took the New Testament and mixed with it many superstitious things. It is a tricky matter in this mixture. Deep down in Catholic doctrines you will usually find the genuine teaching. They are the oldest Christianity in that institutionalized sense. But mixed in with these truths are many pre-Christian and (for lack of a better word) pagan superstitious ideas.You should remember Christ's parable about the woman who took leaven and mixed it in with three measures of fine flour until the whole thing became leaven. This was a prophecy of how the Christian gospel would be "leavened" with heretical and superstitious ideas until the entire matter became corrupted. I definitely take Matt. 13:33-35 as a negative prediction concerning "the kingdom of the heavens". Your references to blood was long and extensive. But I think what would be helpful to you and I would be to consider only the passages about the blood of Jesus. That is, in general, what things are spoken by the writers of the New Testament in reference to the blood of Jesus specifically.I think if we prayerfully consider all those references we get a picture of what God wants to impress us with. The book of Hebrews comes to mind as a good place to look.Perhaps you could not avoid indirect references, for example "the Lamb of God". I think most of the passages would stress the redemptive aspect of the blood of Jesus. Justice of God fell upon Him for our sake. We were judged in Him in His atoning death on man's behalf.This all happened by the predetermination of God. Yes, He was murdered. But He offered Himself obediently in an absolute way to the Father. You are accustomed to refering to names as known I think in Hebrew. So I am not sure who you mean by Yacov. Is that James ?However, I regard the whole New Testament as God's revelation. I think different writers may have displayed different levels of wisdom. They balance each other. I would not fault any New Testament writer as taking us disciples of Jesus completely in a wrong direction.I might say that James was probably the writer the most with one foot still in the old testament. I would regard Paul's 13 books to be the higher or highest revelation level in the NT.I have to stop here for now. See you latter.

And there are more appropriate places on the web to spout evolutionist/agnostic-atheist-humanist preaching. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Baily,I think it was in this discussion you objected to me using the phrase Satanification or Satanified to discribe the fallen man from Genesis.Just on that point I would add this in defense of this view: "And I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed; He will bruise you on the head, But you will bruise him on the heel." (Genesis 3:15)The serpent's seed are the people who follow Satan. Because Satan, the old serpent (Rev.12:9; 20:2), has injected himself as sin into man's flesh. (For this we would need a discussion of Romans chapter 7). This is only a brief comment.In the eyes of God all men have become serpents: I think that the symbolisim of Numbers 21:4-9 when the Israelites were bitten by poisoness serpents and all had to look upon the brass serpent lifted on the pole, indicates that in God's eyes all mankind is poisoned by Satan making them his followers and his offspring. (Compare Numbers 21:4-9 with John 3:14-21)Anyway, fallen men as Satan's followers, are his sons, his seed, not by adoption but by birth: These phrases, "offspring of vipers," "sons of the evil one," "children of the devil," "your father the devil" all indicate this Satanic, or if you will "serpentine" nature and life has embedded itself in fallen mankind. These people are used to persecute and fight against the woman's seed.So we need to be born again, regenerated, (not just adopted) by Jesus Christ to become children of God. And we need to live by the new nature and have the old crucified with Christ through faith.Comment on this point Baily ?

The Apostle Paul does say that the Satanic spirit is operating in the sons of disobedience, causing them to do the desires of the flesh and of the THOUGHTS. So the thought life of all sinners is effected by this attack. Quite true: I would never suggest that this Satanic enfuence is not also on the thought life.Notice that Paul first mentions "the lust of our flesh" as the realm of conduct instigated by "the spirit which is now operating in the sons of disobedience".It may be significant that Paul did not first write that these children of disobedience did not follow first the lust of the thoughts.It is also significant to me that Paul says that nothing good "dwells" in his flesh. And Paul locates the problem in the "members" of his body: Paul also emphasizes that it is his body which is wretched and is "the BODY of this death" Paul concludes with a review that his mind delights in the law of God but with his flesh he serves the law of sin which he has already located in his members: Now it took me years to realize this. But this problem in man's flesh must go back to the actual eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I do not understand everything about this. But it seems "the body of this death" must have commenced from something entering into the body of the first man and woman.Simultaneously with that injection of something foreign and evil into the flesh of man the evil spirit of the authority of the air began operating in the children of disobedience.Now this phrase children of disobedience should mean not just religious types like scribed, Pharisees, priests, and lawyers who opposed Jesus, but all children of the disobedient Adam. In other words all people are implicated.Further I see that they are all called "children of wrath" and that "by nature".The good question you raise is whether those in such danger of the Gehenna sentence are only the religious opposition or all "children of wrath?" It sounds to me like all by nature, children of wrath are in danger of the sentence of Gehenna.I am inclined to understand that the sharp rebukes of ( Matt. 3:7, Matt. 13:38, John 8:44, 1 John 3:10) did not mean that ALL people are not so evilly inclined but only that THESE particular religionists took a special leading role to oppose Christ.It is clear that ALL sinners are enemies of God in need of reconcilation. How then does the typical sinner fare that much better than the enemies of the opposing Pharisees and opposing religionists?How much we give in to that evil nature may enfluence how severe a rebuke we receive from the Lord. In the case of His harsh rebukes of ( Matt. 3:7, Matt. 13:38, John 8:44, 1 John 3:10) I don't have the confidence that it somehow absolves the rest of us. I tried to explain my view above. Is there any real difference between the "sons of disobedience" (Eph. 2:2) who are also [b]"childen of wrath, even as the rest" (Eph. 2:3)? and the vipers who are in danger of the sentence of Gehenna ?The repentent ones are less stubburn. The stubburn ones take the lead in society to oppose the salvation of Jesus directly. That is the only difference I see. So the latter receive a stiffer rebuke. It does not mean that the former are not also free from the evil nature.Remember, it is "by NATURE children of wrath" (Eph. 2:3). And Paul definitely is not speaking only to religionists in Ephesians 2. Above discussion, I think, implicates all fallen sinners. The religionist of militant opposition just receive a more severe rebuke about it. According to the way Jesus used the parable it was all the world which needed that salvation: And the Gehenna of fire that the religionists were in danger of and the perishing that the world is in danger of pretty much puts them on the same level. Don't you think so? Once again here. It is hard for me to imagine that they only became infected when they entered into the religious or political system. I think they were already infected before they entered into it. They were infected from birth.As David tells us: And this was a man who was after the heart of God.Furthermore Ecclesiastes tells us that God made man upright but that man sought out deceptive schemes skewing his upright nature: And the fact that "the wicked go astray from the womb, they err from [their] birth speaking lies" (Psalm 58:3) shows that they do not do so only when entering into the religious or political systems. But in entering into human life they have a sinning nature.You may argue that the vipers is too strong a language to use for common sinners. You may argue that it should be reserved for the relgionists who opposed Jesus. However the Bible says that "the poison of the asp" is under the lips of the typical sinner (Romans 3:13 comp Psalm 140:3) Face it Baily. We sinners are a generation of vipers in need of the redemptive salvation of Jesus Christ. I will think about this. I am running out of time. But remember that the sacrifices ordained by God were not deceitful in themselves. The abuse of them became deceitful. And the refusal to recognize that they all pointed to the sacrifice of the Son of God once and for all, became a tool of opposition. Sins are indeed filthy. Do you deny this?I am not familiar with a "Filthy Pig doctrine". So I am wary of saying "Yes, Yes, this is the Filthy Pig Doctrine". For I do not know what you mean by that phrase.I was filthy though until I learned to apply the precious cleansing blood of Jesus to my filthy sins.I think a filthy sinner is not a filthy pig. God so loved the sinner, even though he was one, that He came in Christ to save him and wash away the impurity of his sins. As I said, off hand, I think that these harsher rebukes fell on the opposers of a militant nature. They, however, do not mean that we typical sinners do not have the same fallen nature as these militant opposers to Jesus.The penalty appears to be the same for opposing religionist and all those whose names are not found written in the book of life: So all sinners need to have their names written in the Lamb's book of life for redemption from eternal perdition. And He is so willing to save us. We just need to believe into the name of the Son of God.Then our condemnation took place already, in the body of Jesus Christ on His cross at Calvary. Justice was imputed in Him on behalf of the believing sinner. Marvelous. Praise to the Lord Jesus! Not all have to oppose. And the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25 show that the sheep were kind to the persecuted brethren of Jesus, even to the least of these His brothers.But this passage in Matthew 25 concerns a special time at the very close of this church age. Throughout the Gospel age we are called to beleive into the Son of God that we may be saved. It sounds like you have some complaint that I cannot readily fathom.Perhaps you have some problem with the religionists of today. I think that that issue and the redemption of Christ upon all men need to not be confused.As being born is only the beginning of human life and one must develop and grow, so spiritually. Being born again is only the beginning of the spiritual journey to also develop and grow spiritually.And many do get sidetracked and distracted in religion. We need to look to the Lord's mercy that we would not.

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.

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? Experience in the spiritual walk is a vital ingredient.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. Oh brother. "Paul's militaristic world view". sigh.I think I'll call it a night. Goodnight.Debating the Apostle Paul's strategic military moves for world domination is just not something I'm up to tonight.Victory by means of absurdity. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Ochave, if the donkey speaking in the book of Numbers is viewed as a miracle then why cannot the speaking serpent in Genesis be viewed the same way ?It has been noted in studies on biblical miracles that very often they come in pairs. That is many miracles are presented twice. This struck me when I read a survey on the subject of Bible miracles.Now why is the speaking donkey in Numbers not a candidate for the second in the pair, matching the speaking serpent in Genesis?

Hi. I'm jaywill - lover of Christ, lover of the Bible.I think the speaking serpent in Genesis is the other instance in the pair of a miraculous event of an animal talking.Do not think that I have not carefully considered other possibilities.

When Jesus Christ became real to me I definitely was not a Bible reader. At first I read some theology books to get help. They were too difficult to understand. And I did not have a foundation of familiarity with Scripture to understand what was being said.One day the thought came to me "Why don't you read the Bible?" I decided that since I had humbled myself to call on the name of Jesus, I supposed I could also humble myself to read the Bible.I began to read a paraphrase New Testament which was popular at that time called "Good News For Modern Man". It was my confidence in Jesus which was my gateway for getting into other books of the Old Testament. I noticed that Jesus took them seriously. And since I trusted His integrity without question, I reasoned that if it was good enough for Jesus it must be Okay. He spoke of Noah. He spoke of Abel. He spoke of Lot. He spoke of Genesis. Since Jesus took it seriously I decided I should read it.To make a long story short (if it is not too late) here is an example of where Jesus took Genesis seriously. Jesus was rebuking the opposing Jews. By this time I could see that "the father" of lies who was a murderer and a liar from the beginning should refer back to the serpent in Genesis three. That was the first recorded lie in history. That is when the serpent told Adam and Eve that they would not surely die if they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.With this interpretation from Jesus that the originator of the lies was the Devil, it had to mean that the Devil was involved with the talking serpent.I found no reason to assume that Jesus regarded early Genesis as not historical. Elsewhere He refered to Abel's death. Elsewhere He refered to the purpose of marriage from the beginning, and quoted Genesis.It was my unwavering respect for Jesus that convinced me that if He took early Genesis seriously, then it was Okay for me to do so also. The integrity of Jesus was and still is without dispute to me.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.