Resurrection of Jesus: Literal or Metphorical?

[MSizer]

If you say literal, do you also believe giants walked the earth and that evolution is false? How do you justify accepting one irrational claim while denouncing another to folklore?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

The ressurection is a metaphor, as I explained already in one of my threads: My Take on the Ressurection

 

[LyricalDutchess]

Its literal. When it comes to evolution, i see nothing wrong with it, but only to a certain point. Evolution is correct in the sense of adaptation to the evolving surroundings. We all adapt. I also believe giants walked the earth as well.

 

[MSizer]

Its literal. When it comes to evolution, i see nothing wrong with it, but only to a certain point. Evolution is correct in the sense of adaptation to the evolving surroundings. We all adapt. I also believe giants walked the earth as well.

So why do you think that the Creation story is false, yet the resurrection is True?

 

[LyricalDutchess]

So why do you think that the Creation story is false, yet the resurrection is True?

Not saying the creation story is false. I do believe everything was created by the Father, through Jesus Christ. As i said, evolution in the sense of simple adaptation doesnt go against God and creationalism. But from one species to another, i believe it veers off from the Word.

 

[LoTrobador]

So why do you think that the Creation story is false, yet the resurrection is True?

Would non-literal necessarily mean false?

 

[MSizer]

Would non-literal necessarily mean false?

Yes, indeed. Either all of life was created as is, or it was not. There is no gray answer to such a question.

 

[MSizer]

Not saying the creation story is false. I do believe everything was created by the Father, through Jesus Christ. As i said, evolution in the sense of simple adaptation doesnt go against God and creationalism. But from one species to another, i believe it veers off from the Word.

You're making two oppsite claims. Either everything was created in it's current form, or it was not. The creation story of the bible is absolutely in opposition to evolution.

 

[LyricalDutchess]

You're making two oppsite claims. Either everything was created in it's current form, or it was not. The creation story of the bible is absolutely in opposition to evolution.

Im really not. Again. Adaptation. For instance, snakes. There are certain enivornmental conditions that causes them to vary is sizes, thicker skin and such. Even we humans adapt to our surroundings.

 

[sniper762]

the resurection story as told by the gospel writer's is literal and true, but highly misinterpreted by most christians. the time frame from crucifixion to resurection was only 2 nights and one day, not 3 days and 3 nights.

 

[MSizer]

Im really not. Again. Adaptation. For instance, snakes. There are certain enivornmental conditions that causes them to vary is sizes, thicker skin and such. Even we humans adapt to our surroundings.

So then you do deny the theory of evolution, as what you describe above is not the theory of evolution, it is merely a small piece of it. If you accept only that much of the theory, you are a Creationist indeed.

 

[LoTrobador]

Yes, indeed. Either all of life was created as is, or it was not. There is no gray answer to such a question.

Then would metaphorical necessarily mean false? Would a metaphor necessarily be a falsehood?

 

[LyricalDutchess]

So then you do deny the theory of evolution, as what you describe above is not the theory of evolution, it is merely a small piece of it. If you accept only that much of the theory, you are a Creationist indeed.

Thats exactly why i said i believe it to a certain point. And i never said i wasnt a creationist. lol

 

[LyricalDutchess]

the resurection story as told by the gospel writer's is literal and true, but highly misinterpreted by most christians. the time frame from crucifixion to resurection was only 2 nights and one day, not 3 days and 3 nights.

Glad you pointed that out sniper. In the book of Genesis, we see that the evening and the morning was a day. Its why we have to go outside one set of scripture in order to see the entire picture.

 

[sniper762]

evolved man (from ape) and god's created man (adam) are not the same. both truly existed, just at different times.

 

[e2ekiel]

If you say literal, do you also believe giants walked the earth and that evolution is false? How do you justify accepting one irrational claim while denouncing another to folklore?

what an absolutely intellectually dishonest question.

 

[cablescavenger]

Not saying the creation story is false. I do believe everything was created by the Father, through Jesus Christ. As i said, evolution in the sense of simple adaptation doesnt go against God and creationalism. But from one species to another, i believe it veers off from the Word.

That's a new one on me. The Father created everything through Jesus?
Is that a new religion? or a spin off from an existing one?

 

[e2ekiel]

That's a new one on me. The Father created everything through Jesus?
Is that a new religion? or a spin off from an existing one?

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. 6There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light. 9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. 10He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11He came to his own,and his own people did not receive him. 12But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. 14And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15( John bore witness about him, and cried out, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.'") 16And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. 17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.

 

[cablescavenger]

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God

OK. I just googled that, it is from the Christian Bible New Testament, John 1:1.

Does that mean you disregard the old testament? if so what religion are you?

 

[Matthew78]

If you say literal, do you also believe giants walked the earth and that evolution is false? How do you justify accepting one irrational claim while denouncing another to folklore?

If any believer accepts the resurrection of Jesus as being metaphorical (for whatever reason), then I would ask that believer how the gospel stories would have to be written, or anything else in the New Testament, for that believer to take it as literal or believe that the authors intend for it to be understood as literal history.