As I mentioned up-thread, there's not much time left.
Perhaps the Redeemer is a fan of the King, or Ricky Nelson. I could quote this to him, and he would smile.
Fools rush in where wise men never go
But wise men never fall in love, so how are they to know?
When we met, I felt my life begin
So open up your heart and let this fool rush in.
Many Christians place great importance in holding to a literal interpretation of the Bible. Thanks great, except that the Book is literal to the point of abject absurdity, and that's going to really frost people. "Now that's taking it too far!"
To the victor go the puns, at the last trump. :)
You might want to be a bit cautious in your own reference to foolishness. I have no idea about how much effort you have invested in the methodology of interpretation, but the literal, grammatical, syntactical, contextual, historical, cultural method of determining what the Holy Ghost has to say clearly through the style of the writer He has chosen to deliver His message. That is the form He uses to communicate so very exactly that we can't claim that onr fails to reach the shores of Heaven because the directions were not abundant and plainly stated, but couched in mystical ways not understood by the ordinary person.
That is the reason we ought to use a literal hermeneutic, and there is no excuse not to. Apparently you do not seem to accept that literal interpretation is both basic and normal, and that it is comprised both plain literal language and by figurative-literal language.
Figurative and/or allegorical interpretation is NOT normal. It places a meaning on the communication of a literal message that the author did not intend, and thus brings division and argumentation to something that has a plain sense. The meaning becomes blurred, if not an outright lie, when contrasted to the literally-interpreted Scripture which has but one meaning, and cannot lie.
Every Scripture has only one sense. When at the supper before his execution Jesus said of the bread, "Take, eat; this is my body"; either the bread suddenly became human flesh in the plain literal sense (which it could not have) and the eating disciples engaged in cannibalism, or the bread was to be condidered in the figurative-literal sense as a symbol of Jesus' offering the bread to them as a symbol of His body in a ritual memorial of the atoning sacrifice which it was to be subjected to only a few hours later. It cannot be both, and it could be the first only if by misplaced fideism one abandons sanity and denies the reality that the bread did not become human flesh in any way, but was still just bread, and leavened bread at that, when they ate it. However, either case, correct or not, would be a literal interpretation, not an allegorical use of language.
The reason your comments so far in this thread are foolish lies is that:
(1) You have been caught in making up presumptions that cannot be truthful when one boils down the details ("I will say this and that to Jesus when I meet Him, and He will do thus and thus when He hears me").
(2) What you have said is not logical.
(3) The Bible does not make sense nor agree withitself when you offer your interpretation.
(4) Because your interpretation is not normal, it is impossible to communicate.
(5) Experience does not bear out the implications of your explanations.
(6) The Lord Jesus Christ did not interpret Scripture as you have.
(7) None of the Scripture interprets itself the way that you say, especially regarding the teaching of the doctrines which rests on those Scriptures as eplained by Bro. Bill.
(8) You think you can deny a workman-like exegesis and application of the passages which are in view.
The god part got added in, spiritualizing him into a god man. Trump trumped the Establishment because he walked right past the established wisdom.
Right here your words show that you "up-thread" are attempting to confute, then refute what PBR has just discussed, showing plainly that your tack is deliberately anti-christian, the slant of the Anti-savior of the Unholy Trinity, a position that rejects solid expository preaching.
Your motive is clear and unabashed. It is oppositional to the purpose of the Bibles for informing the human race of their rescue by the substitutionary object of God's righteous wrath.
With the political parable playing out as it is, right now, the Divine trumping of the religious establishment is clearly at the doors. Not much time left to get that message out.
In one sentence, the plain intimation is that you have tried to equate Donald Trump with Deity (Our Blessed Redeemer); the Clintonistas with organized religion (of all kinds, right or wrong, Christian or not, American or foreign); and the inauguration of Trump's Presidency as presaging the Second Coming of Christ The King to set up His earthly Kingdom of Righteousness and Peace.
Do you see how inane and insane your ill-matched comparison is? And how irrelevant to the discussion of the God-Man issue it is? What are you trying to achieve here? Misdirection? Confusion?
Stick to the point employing a credible argument, or stop wasting bandwidth.
I could quote this to him, and he would smile.
Personally, I doubt it massively. When you actually do meet Him (and you will), this is what I think you'll be doing:
"That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth,
and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Php. 2:10; cf Is. 45:23 & Rom. 14:11 to see that this is the Jehovah God who robed Himself in human flesh, and was born of a woman as are all infant, so far). Anything else is pure braggadocio.
God couldn't have done that in a kosher way 2000 years ago
Oh? Was Adam conceived by the impregnation of a female's oozoa by a male human spermatozoa? Was Eve conceived in a similar fashion, and where did the Y-chromosome go when she was fashioned? Two thousand years ago God could do exactly what He wahted in the creation activity, just as at the beginning. having omnipotence as one of his characteristics.
But typically employed as refuting Holy Scripture, your thoughts are at least prompted by the Evil One, if I am not mistaken. And Scripture says I'm not, if I believe as Bro. Bill has discussed in the article above (and I do), which is relevant to your motivation.
The fact is, my Bible declares that we have a Man in Heaven representing the human race as an advocate before The Father, prasying for each of us.
Let me invite you to give up your view of what the purpose and nature of God's Word is, and accept PBR's summary of this matter.
(Note: some of the material from HERE'S HOW THE BIBLE CAN MAKE SENSE TO YOU TODAY!!, obtained from Happy Heralds, Inc. literature site.)