[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Glenn - You are pulling the "switch-a-rue" here again. The facts are Mormons disagree with Jesus on hell fire.DAVEH: REALLY!?!?!?!?!? If you (or anybody else) thinks I'm pulling a "", please look at my below questions and then review your above answer and see if your answers are pertinent to my questions.I am more and more inclined to believe the Mormon Jesus is not the Biblical Jesus as I can't even get a yes or no on the question; is Jesus the half-brother of Satan?
I get both no and then a little spin that comes up yes.You are pulling the "switch-a-rue" here below.
Brother Glenn, you made the statement..........
"If it CAN be taken literal it MUST be taken literal."
........and I'm trying to figure out if that is just your personal belief, or if it is common to Protestantism. I gave you an example of what the Bible says about the "Son of man" and am asking you if you interpret it literally, or figuratively. I'm not trying to trap you......I even pointed out the possible contradiction if you say "God is not a man" contrary to the literal (according to you) statement the Bible makes. I'm not trying to hammer you on this, Glenn. I'm just trying to figure out how you (and other Protestants) believe relative to God being a man.
FWIW.....Many times I have been denigrated because of my beliefs about God being an "exalted man". Assuming you do NOT believe such, I'm trying to figure out why you don't think so despite the Bible mentioning Jesus as being the Son of man. Nobody else has ever been willing to discuss this with me, and I'm very curious as to why. All I'm asking is that you share your thoughts/beliefs without getting uptight. Though we may disagree and you may have a contradiction of beliefs, I don't want to nail you to the wall about it. I just want to discuss it. Will you be so kind as to do so?
And......I'd be happy if other TTers would share their thoughts with me on this matter too.
--[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Glenn - I need some help here. I understood that the way I interpret the Bible is generally accepted among evangelical Christians.
DAVEH: If that is truly the case, then would you not think that our Father in Heaven is a man? For does not the Bible testify that Jesus is the "Son of man"? Yet many times I have been told (by TTers included) that God is not a man. Using your method of interpreting the Bible, Glenn, it would seem like God is obviously a man. Do you disagree??? And when you answer, please bear in mind that you said "If it CAN be taken literal it MUST be taken literal." If you say God is not a man, then who am I to believe, YOU or the Bible???Does anyone know? There are numerous books on Biblical interpretation.Glenn - I've told you this before. If it CAN be taken literal it MUST be taken literal.DAVEH: I do not recall you saying such before, but I do have a bad memory. Is your above reasoning a commonly accepted method of understanding the Bible amongst other Protestants? And....is it accepted amongst Bible scholars? Or....is this just your personal way of understanding the Bible
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
