[Wondergirl]

You certainly are not. You really believe that your conjecture trumps the Bible. Jesus lied. Paul lied. The author of Hebrews lied. And how do we know that? Because WG said so!!

I didn't say they lied. I said Jesus followed the norm of what was the traditional and accepted belief about Genesis 3. Had He launched into the historical-critical explanation, He would have confused His uneducated listeners.

[jlisenbe]

I said Jesus followed the norm of what was the traditional and accepted belief about Genesis 3. Had He launched into the historical-critical explanation, He would have confused His uneducated listeners.

Except that you have not one shred of evidence for that. It's your conjecture. It seems to be what you are good at, so OK with me.

[Wondergirl]

so OK with me.

Yaaaaaay!!!

Jesus knew they weren't ready for "Adam and Steve" to replace "Adam and Eve" or finding out the relationship between David and Jonathan was the longest and best-described human love story in the OT.

[jlisenbe]

And again. Pure conjecture prompted by nothing other than your preconceived ideas. It's you informing the Bible rather than the other way around. And as usual, there is nothing at all to support your views, but there is an ocean of material that shows your views to be flat wrong.

[Wondergirl]

And again. Pure conjecture prompted by nothing other than your preconceived ideas. It's you informing the Bible rather than the other way around. And as usual, there is nothing at all to support your views, but there is an ocean of material that shows your views to be flat wrong.

Stop being a close-minded literalist. Instead, read the Bible with open eyes and an open heart!

[paraclete]

what is wrong with believing Genesis three is a literal account, ok, there were no eye witnesses but it is an oral tradition. It certainly illustrates what you are doing, being contrary. If you cannot believe the most basic of Bible texts where are you?

[Wondergirl]

what is wrong with believing Genesis three is a literal account, ok, there were no eye witnesses but it is an oral tradition.

Whether one believes it's literal or an allegory, what's the lesson in it for us?

[jlisenbe]

Stop being a close-minded literalist. Instead, read the Bible with open eyes and an open heart!

Here is what is wrong with your approach. First, it opens the door to anything and everything. A man could tell his wife that Jesus took that hard stand against adultery because He didn't want to shock them. Murder? Surprisingly, it's not as bad as you might think. Kindness and forgiveness? Not really all that important. Forgiveness of sins? Actually...no. It can go anyplace your fertile imagination can take you. In your case, it takes you right to where your heart really seems to be, and that is liberal orthodoxy.

But even worse, to suggest that Jesus shied away from telling people the truth because He didn't want to be disturbing is sheer madness. You seem not to be in the habit of reading the Gospels. He shocked them all the time! Divorce? Not as easy as they thought. Being angry at your brother? Can actually amount to murder. Want to be right with God, young man? Sell all you own, give it to the poor, and follow Christ. Disciples? Well a tax collector will fit right in! In fact, if you've ever read the end of one of the Gospels, it was that "I am the Son of God and thus God" teaching that got Him crucified.

And even you are a literalist when it suits your convenience. You believe there was literally a man named Jesus who literally had disciples and literally taught many things, even though you can't actually believe any of them. As long as it doesn't conflict with your already settled beliefs, you are fine with a literal understanding.

I feel very sorry for you. I fear you will find out the hard way that you are far from following God. Your belief that the Bible can mean whatever WG wants it to mean is beyond dangerous.

[Wondergirl]

I fear you will find out the hard way that you are far from following God.

You are saying I will spend eternity in a fiery hell? What is your definition of "following God"?

Your belief that the Bible can mean whatever WG wants it to mean is beyond dangerous.

You certainly have missed the meaning of what I've been posting!

[jlisenbe]

You are saying I will spend eternity in a fiery hell?

Actually, Jesus said that. Sadly true.

You certainly have missed the meaning of what I've been posting!

Nope. I understand what you are saying exactly. You are very clearly saying that your understanding of the world supersedes anything the Bible says.

[Wondergirl]

Actually, Jesus said that. Sadly true.

No, He didn't.

I understand what you are saying exactly. You are very clearly saying that your understanding of the world supersedes anything the Bible says.

Yep, you have totally misunderstood!

[jlisenbe]

He didn't?

31 “But when (Y)the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then (Z)He will sit on His glorious throne. 32 And all the nations will be (AA)gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, (AB)just as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; 33 and He will put the sheep (AC)on His right, but the goats (AD)on the left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, (AE)inherit the kingdom prepared for you (AF)from the foundation of the world. 35 For (AG)I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; (AH)I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; 36 (AI)naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you (AJ)visited Me; (AK)I was in prison, and you came to Me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? 38 And when did we see You as a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? 39 And when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 And (AL)the King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, (AM)to the extent that you did it for one of the least of these brothers or sisters of Mine, you did it for Me.’
41 “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘(AN)Depart from Me, you accursed people, into the (AO)eternal fire which has been prepared for (AP)the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; 43 I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ 44 Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or as a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not [i]take care of You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it for one of the least of these, you did not do it for Me, either.’ 46 These will go away into (AQ)eternal punishment, but the righteous into (AR)eternal life.”

And lest you foolishly suggest that His statement is merely allegorical, you might want to notice that the Apostle Paul did not believe that to be the case. This is his take on it from 2 Thes.

"For after all (N)it is only right [e]for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, 7 and to give relief to you who are afflicted, along with us, [f](O)when the Lord Jesus will be revealed (P)from heaven (Q)with [g]His mighty angels 8 (R)in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who (S)do not know God, and to those who (T)do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 These people will pay the penalty of (U)eternal destruction, (V)away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, 10 when He comes to be (W)glorified among His [h]saints on that (X)day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed—because our (Y)testimony to you was believed."

Honestly, I have discharged my duty to you. You must make your own choices, but that is on you now. The truth is plainly before you.

[Wondergirl]

The truth is plainly before you.

And I do my best, with God's help, to live that Truth.

[paraclete]

great and since you believe the truth no need to argue about it

[jlisenbe]

Can't help but wonder if this is a preview of national events yet to come.

Downtown Portland, Oregon, erupted in violence yet again Thursday night, drawing tear gas and smoke bombs from federal officers who were deployed to quell the unrest, according to a report.
Rioters set fires and smashed windows in the area of the Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse until being driven away by federal officers, OregonLive.com reported.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/portland-...rthouse-report

[paraclete]

Not exactly youth on the rampage but de javeu, these are rehashing former issues and riots, must be a very lawless place, Oregon, or maybe the populous have learned they can riot with impunity

[jlisenbe]

I think the average person in Oregon is a law-abiding individual. Their liberal dem pols just don't have the courage to put a stop to this.

[paraclete]

so not in favour of a massacre eh?

[jlisenbe]

Wouldn’t need a massacre. Just a jail.