It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I don't think any adult reader of the bible would make the mistake of thinking Jesus was literally a lamb. Please. The issue lies in the less than obvious bits that can just as well be read as a metaphors. ________________________________________For example, you believe Jesus literally rose from the dead simply because it says so in the Bible. and because of faith. However, it could also be argued that Jesus only metaphorically 'rose' from the dead, in the sense, he lived on through his teachings, and so all those references to his resurrection are not to be taken literally. Why is this interpretation less correct than yours? Why can't a ''christian'' deny the resurrection as a literal event. My point is, there is really no objective methodology in reading the bible. _________________________________________ Anything can become 'metaphorical' or 'literal' depeneding on what you want it to be and this is exactly what christians are doing. Sometimes they apply faith to believe an impossibility. According to some christians, God could raise Jesus from the dead because he is omnipotent. But God was not omnipotent enough to create man from the earth or cause a great flood.
Do I believe that John thought Jesus was a literal lamb? Of course not. Do I believe that Jesus took away the sin of the world? Of course I do. In just that one verse, we can see that the Bible can be read both literally and figuratively simultaneously.
reply to post by OpinionatedB
Actually, you are quite wrong.
Actually, I am quite right.
As Christians, we have the right to define what that term means, and it means an attestation to the creeds. The Nicene Creed affirms the Trinity, so anyone who rejects the Trinity rejects the Creed and rejects Christianity. Like the Gnostic Christians of the Second and Third Centuries, they are preaching a different religion, and therefore should not be labelled with the name of the religion that they do not profess.
The litmus test is whether the orthodox (small "o") churches will accept another faith's baptism. I was baptized as a Methodist, and because the Catholic Church recognizes that as a valid Christian church, I did not need to be baptized when I converted to Catholicism. However, someone who was baptized in the Mormon Church would have to be baptized if they converted, because they have not received a Christian baptism.
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
Can a ''christian'' also believe that Jesus did not literally die and rise from the dead? Can he also believe that Jesus is not literally God?
Both of those claims are attested to in the Nicene Creed, which is the statement of faith that defines who is a Christian. If someone rejects the claims made in the creed, they are rejecting Christianity. They can say that they are a "follower of Christ", but they can no longer say that they are a Christian (which they should be fine with, since they disagree with the tenets of Christianity.)
That is also why Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and other non-Trinitarians who believe in Christ are not Christians.
@adjensen...''Are you claiming that God is not omnipotent and is incapable of making a virgin pregnant or bringing someone back from the dead?
/'' _________________________________________ In case, you were unaware, islam teaches that God is omnipotent. Muslims believe Jesus was literally born of a virgin and that God will literally resurrect everybody who has died. I also don't recall ever questioning the virgin birth. As for the Islamic account of Jesus, one interpretation is that God took his soul from the cross and returned it to Jesus while his body lay in the tomb, and then raised him up. This not only nullifies the crucifixion, but it is also identical to the account in the gospel as well. Hence the Koran says ''they boast that they crucified Jesus, but it only appeared to them that way''.edit on 21-12-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)
...and that is exactly what I said. God returned Jesus' soul and made him come back to life. Seeing that he is alive, why Jews are in error when they say they ''killed'' Jesus.
soul has to be added, or "returned" in the case of a ressurrection.
I don't think any adult reader of the bible would make the mistake of thinking Jesus was literally a lamb.
(Aside from totally derailing this thread?
provide the barest of skeletal remains of a story as to what "Christianity" you started out with, and WHY you converted.
I had accepted the Bible cover to cover, though I felt that there were some inconsistencies here and there, especially towards the end in Pauls books, where the line between man and God starts to blur. When I read the Koran,and figured it is not only consistent with the basic premise of the Bible, but also corrects the mistakes of the Bible. So what of it?
lots of people don't "accept the Bible cover to cover" - but you seem to have a hard time reconciling that.
but rather the "religion and theology" of the Book, preferably with people who want to do the same.
THIS thread has provided you evidence that a large portion of self-identified "Christians" do not, in fact, take the Bible literally.
Therefore, it's a nonsequitor for the thread if you won't share with us which version and from which denomination you 'hail'.
Exactly what parts are they not taking "literally"?
Your a just another sunni who just said they get to decide for GOD who is and is not a believer. Its no wonder you people are on the other side of the world supporting the damn wahabbis. You think just alike.
Here are some points to ponder - is excluding your neighbor from your little club "loving your neighbor as yourself"? Do you seriously believe that Nicene Christianity is the only form of Christianity there is, excluding the rest? Are they hell-bound because they do not tread the Way that your fathers paved, preferring to tread the Way that Jesus paved?
I see you for what you are now, and nothing will change that.