Posted on 12/25/2015 2:41:05 PM PST by Arthur McGowan
Proof of when the Star of Bethlehem happened and how...
I have read it and understand it well. I haven't met anyone who subscribes to the myth of transubstantiation who grasps it at all.
So please don't take any more bandwidth to impress me with an explanation that tries to say that the words of this chapter of this small book of the Bible does not demonstrate the epitome of Jesus' task of training the disciples in figurative-literal language used to illustrate a literal Bible Truth.
You might want to take a look at Revelation 10, especially verse 9, and see if a connection there appears to you, regarding literal language versus figurative-literal language, and how it relates to the Last Supper.
It does to a wise man, whose vocabulary includes the word "metaphor."
Let me remind you that the Revelation, The Enlightening, given to The Christ by The God was sent and signed by Him through His Angel Manifestation to His bond-slave John, who wrote down for us the Words of The Angel, as well as recording what he saw with his own eyes, looking into The Heaven; just as he did the book of his experiences with Jesus in His ministry on earth. I think John understood what he was writing there, and what he was writing about, did he not?
So your thesis is that Jesus used a metaphor, eating his flesh and drinking his blood, that caused most of his followers to abandon him in disgust.
In other words, your thesis is that Jesus was the stupidest, most incompetent preacher who ever lived.
So, how did all those illiterate peasants get into your religion, again?
I bet you refuse to even listen to "scientific proof" for the events of Genesis 1-11.
I didn’t tell you what you think. I told you what you said.
Launching a personal attack on me doesn’t change what you asserted, which is that Jesus used a metaphor that misled the vast majority of his audience, causing them to abandon him—and presumably their hope of salvation.
Your theory makes Jesus not merely incompetent as a preacher, a poor communicator, but a liar, since, by using a “metaphor,” he ACTIVELY DECEIVED his audience about what he was “trying” to say, driving them away.
Jesus’ actions in John 6—letting his followers abandon him precisely because they took his words literally—demonstrate that Jesus’ words in John 6 were and are intended to be taken literally: He promises to give his flesh as food to be eaten and his blood as drink to be drunk.
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.â€
Oh??
50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world."
52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?"
53 Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven -- not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever."
59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.
60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, "This is a hard saying; who can understand it?"
61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, "Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe."Â For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65 And He said, "Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father."
66 From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more. 67 Then Jesus said to the twelve, "Do you also want to go away?"
68 But Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Let's look at this...
54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
Isn't it the teaching of Rome that you cannot be assured of having Eternal Life?
The FIRST part of Jesus' words are LITERAL and the last are NOT??
Literal?
Or not?
You're a Holy Roman Catholic priest, right?
You posted the video. Do you think the star was a miracle?
What is the correct answer?
You say you are and based on what you’ve written in this Forum, I’d say you are.
The video demonstrates that the “star” was the result of the natural motions of the planets. In that sense, it was not a miracle.
If the “star” had been the result of a direct, ad hoc intervention by God, it would not be possible to verify the Scriptural account using the laws of motion.
Whether your affiliation is with “Wesleyans” or not, as one of your recent posts (#62) seems to indicate.
The video only hypothesizes. It does not "prove" anything. The producers of the video were not there and did not see what the Magoi of Anatolia saw. Levi, the writer of the gospel, was not there either, but he recorded the account that was held by people who were there, as the preserved inspired infallible Words of the Holy Ghost. You are in no position to certify that the happening was not miraculous, so don't attempt to.
If the "star" had been the result of a direct, ad hoc intervention by God, it would not be possible to verify the Scriptural account using the laws of motion.
It is still not possible to stand on the plausibility to confirm or deny the Holy Writings. The entirely speculative nature of this hypothesis should never be the basis for believing the Words of the Holy Ghost. Nay, my man, the God-given and inspired, infallible inscripturated Words of the Holy Ghost should be the basis upon which to believe that the same radiance that illuminated the Tabernacle in the Wilderness, and imparted a glow to Moses' face, should be the "asteroid" that guided the Anatolian wizards alone to the Savior of the World, and rested above Him.
"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him" (Heb. 11:6 nAV).
Come on, buck up, and get some faith, man.
I see.
You are:
1) Obnoxious;
2) Not very bright.
3) Mostly interested in praising yourself for your own supposed “faith.”
The video was made to show that what is reported in the Scriptures is consistent with what can be demonstrated concerning the observed positions of the planets at the time of the birth of Jesus and visit of the Magi.
A number of people have jumped on this thread to flaunt what they consider their own superior virtue, and in the process demonstrated their own stupidity.
They have claimed not to “need” modern science, because their “faith” is stronger than other people’s. Some of them have actually declared that people who look into what modern science can tell us about the “star” are going to fall into a fiery pit.
The findings displayed in the video would not even be interesting unless the maker of the video ALREADY BELIEVED that what the gospel reports is true. It is a praiseworthy exercise to discover ways in which events reported in Scripture can be independently verified. Doing so removes objections to faith.
You are an example of the insufferable prigs whose main interest is in congratulating yourself on your “faith”: O, Lord, I thank you that I am not like those others, whose faith is not as pure, and strong, and praiseworthy as my own.
I’ll keep your bias in mind while assessing the reliability of your conclusions. I am impressed that you are not too shy to let your complaints be aired. However, I doubt that this approach will help sell your theories on Biblical astronomy.
AHHHhhh...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.