Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You said what I bolded. I showed you that scientists admit they don’t know the origin of the universe, and they admit it. Therefore, you must now rate every one of my posts “winner.” You wrote that check; you have to cash it.
If you draw a map and put an X and say "this X is the gas station on Main Street" you know that is not true. It represents the gas station for purposes of your map. When the Bible says "this is my body" it means the bread represents Christ's body for the purpose of the ceremony taking place.
And what have you based this conclusion on (i.e. that animals don't have a spirit)?
You have to look at it from the perspective of Noah. What was his understanding of what comprised the earth? He did not have the same concept of the world you and I have. He knew nothing of Australia or the Antarctic. As far as he knew, they did not exist. The word "earth' in Genesis chapter 6 can also mean the "land" so it may be that what Noah knew to be the "land" i.e. the Middle East, flooded but not Australia or the Antarctic. With that qualification, yes, he did get all the animals that were in what he knew was the world.
Sorry you don't.
Okay then, we may be more in agreement than I had previously thought. I strongly suspect that there was a pretty good-sized flood back in Noah's day, and that it comprised the whole earth -- in terms of what Noah believed the whole earth to be. I believe he probably gathered together as many animals as he could, but clearly did not get a male and female of every kind.
And this particular sentence is a "Winner," despite the fact that we may disagree on many other issues.
God, like any author, uses metaphors. A metaphor is a precise figure of speech used to draw attention to something. Had he said, "This represents my body" it would have been true to fact, but somewhat boring, or at least non-exciting. On the other hand, by saying, "This IS my body" he made the listeners sit up and take notice. Figures of speech are used to emphasize something.
Absolutely!
God formed man from the dust of the ground (Gen 2:7) and breathed into him the breath of life and thus the body of man became a living soul (Hebrew nephesh chay). However, God didn't stop there with humans.
I have found that "debating" is frequently word used for "me try to convince you I'm right and you're wrong while totally not listening to you". Frankly, I don't find such a an approach to be productive or in line with Christ's teachings. I have no interest in such "debate". I'm happy to share perspectives, but never in debating.
You know what this sounds like, don't you? It sounds like you're saying, "Now, dear... if you'll listen very carefully to what I'm going to tell you (since your understanding of the scriptures is clearly flawed and mine isn't), you'll end up seeing that I'm right and you're wrong. Is that okay with you?"
....
nPeace, you need to understand that nothing you could possibly say is going to change what I believe. It's not that my "conclusion [is] based on what think"; it is based on "what the scriptures say." We are reading the same scriptures (well, sort of, since you use the JWs own translation, which may very well state things differently than the KJV, which I use) but we are understanding them differently. That's really all there is to it. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ, and ultimately of all of us. It is one of our core doctrines. We can try to "reason" from what the scriptures say, but we're still going to come up with contradictory conclusions. Now if you really want to go there, I will, but I would suggest that you spend your time trying to convince someone who might actually be able to see it your way, because I've heard the Jehovah's Witnesses perspective before (including all of their arguments) and I don't find them convincing.
Maybe the seed is more like the egg from the female and the male just delivers "pollen" to the seed. Just like the seed of a plant is fertilized by pollen which can be carried on the wind or by insects, etc. No mle needed.
I've got to disagree with your there. According to the dictionary (pick any reliable version), an image is "a representation of the external form of a person or thing in art," for instance "an image of St. Bartholomew." It is the representation of a person's or object's physical qualities. You would never use the word "image" in any other context outside of the Bible. You look at yourself in the mirror and you see your image. A child who looks like his dad is said to be "his spittin' image." Even if you use the word as a metaphor -- for example, "He is the image of health," you are describing how a person looks. You are describing his physical appearance as being "healthy." You can't apply the word "image" to something that is incorporeal. It makes no sense, for example, to say that something is the exact image of "air."
Please define the terms, "body," "soul" and "spirit" because I don't believe we're using them in the same way.
Adam became spiritually separated from God, but he didn't lose his own spirit. Had he done so, he would have immediately died. (He actually did lose his own spirit at the end of his mortal life, but it would only be a temporary loss as his spirit will be reunited with his body at the resurrection.)
Depending upon what you mean, I may or may not agree. We are to worship God in spirit and in truth. When we do so, we commune with Him -- spirit to spirit.
Okay, I have a question for you: If Jesus truly was a human being, then he must have had 46 chromosomes, one strand of 23 which He got from His mother and another strand of 23 which He got from His Father. As to how His conception took place, the Bible doesn't really tell us. But I'm wondering where you believe Jesus Christ (whom you have said was a human being) got his second strand of chromosomes. Are you saying He got them from a spirit? So, it takes our spirit to know His spirit. That doesn't mean that we are solely spirit, but it doesn't mean that He is either.
Does it? That’s an understanding that came along after the first 1500 years of the church. Jesus wasn’t drawing a map; Jesus was turning a social convention into a religious ritual. You may understand it to mean that, but others closer to Jesus and more learned than you comprehend it differently. In the end, we just don’t know for sure.
There’s no real help for this one. It Just. Doesn’t. Translate.
Is that what he was doing? Or are you simply speculating? Because that’s not the way the church comprehended it until the reformation.
That's too bad... for you.
Very good analogy! Look at 1 Corinthians 10:4, where a form of the same word was used. Then ask the question, "Was the rock-mass really Jesus, or did it just represent Jesus?"
I like your last sentence. We just don't know for sure. So my interpretation is as valid as yours. I do not know anyone who was around in the first 1500 years of the church so I do not know what they believed. And you do not know how close to Jesus or learned I am so that proves nothing. And finally, I believe Jesus COULD have changed bread into His body does does that mean that a priest can do the same thing? Jesus turned water into wine but I think the church buys wine for communion. Why not change water into wine and make a real miracle?
