It’s literally in the Bible...

Originally posted by @thinkofone
No supernatural or literally divine attributes.

As a man, he was incomparably wise [or thereabouts] in terms of his moral teaching, then?

Originally posted by @thinkofone
No supernatural or literally divine attributes.

If Jesus wasn’t in any way divine or supernatural, what do you think he was referring to when he spoke of the “Gospel” and of the “kingdom of God”?

I presume you think those “words of Jesus” were also not literal?

Originally posted by @fmf
As a man, he was incomparably wise [or thereabouts] in terms of his moral teaching, then?

Naturally the qualifiers "By and large...reasonably sound and reasonably coherent within themselves" apply there as well.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Yes I can see why you would think the words of Jesus are true.

Jesus claimed he was sent by God, do you believe those words of his to be literal and true?

Are you going to answer my on topic questions ToO?

Originally posted by @divegeester
Are you going to answer my on topic questions ToO?

Yet you framed the topic as follows:

Here’s the question guys:

How do you personally decide what is, and what isn’t, literal in the bible?

Did you forget?

Originally posted by @thinkofone
[b]If you walk around with a mask all the time, it is no surprise that you won't be trusted. "Why are you hiding who you are?" eventually will be the question people will wonder about.

Only those people who are unable to logically refute what others have to say and so resort to ad hominem attack.

There is no crime in deriving benefit person ...[text shortened]... enefit" by using the Bible to create God in their own image and to support self-serving beliefs.

You were refuted on Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 18.

I can't help it if you're in denial.

One of your cheerleaders came by and gave a big yawn as if it was to long to read. That doesn't mean much. And you haven't replied.

Pull your chest in. You're argument just was not that strong.

Originally posted by @sonship
You were refuted on Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 18.

I can't help it if you're in denial.

In that thread you created a straw man and attempted to refute that as you are wont to do.

Even at that you hardly presented a cogent argument.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
In that thread you created a straw man and attempted to refute that as you are wont to do.

Even at that you hardly presented a cogent argument.

Come back over to How To Be Washed in the Blood and show me the strawman.

Prove that "an eternal redemption" cannot be "an eternal redemption" - as referring to Hebrews 8,9 on Jeremiah's prophecy of a new covenant.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Yet you framed the topic as follows:

Here’s the question guys:

How do you personally decide what is, and what isn’t, literal in the bible?

Did you forget?

No of course not; and yet you answered this question:

“In terms of the nature of Jesus - the man himself who "walked the Earth" - do you ascribe any supernatural or divine attributes to him?”

Why is it you feel you want to ridgedly to the OP with one poster and yet you will diverge with another?

Your furtiveness is so funny. 😉

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Yet you framed the topic as follows:

Here’s the question guys:

How do you personally decide what is, and what isn’t, literal in the bible?

Did you forget?

So again thinkofone...

You ascribe no divine or supernatural attributes to Jesus and yet you vociferously uphold his words.

How do you reconcile this when Jesus said that he was sent by God the father, that god the father was in him and that when someone had seen him, they had seen God the father?

Originally posted by @divegeester
No of course not; and yet you answered this question:

“In terms of the nature of Jesus - the man himself who "walked the Earth" - do you ascribe any supernatural or divine attributes to him?”

Why is it you feel you want to ridgedly to the OP with one poster and yet you will diverge with another?

Your furtiveness is so funny. 😉

You asked the following:

Are you going to answer my on topic questions ToO?

Your questions are not "on topic" as you asserted.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Your questions are not "on topic" as you asserted.

The question in my post above the one I am replying to is absolutely bang on topic. 🙂

Originally posted by @thinkofone
If anyone is delusional it is you.

An example of your delusional thinking is your denial in another thread that in the following passage chattel slavery is clearly and unambiguously being condoned::
Leviticus 25
44‘As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you ...[text shortened]... an attempt to make yourself feel better.

Embrace the truth."The truth will make you free".

Embrace this truth. You exhibit exegetical pschizophina.

On the one hand you claim that "the Bible.., is widely open to interpretation and contains inconsistencies, discrepancies and outright contradictions."

Then on the other hand you vehemently defend an interpretation of Leviticus 25 as meaning God condones slavery.

Talk about cherry picking. You've perfected it on every level. The next thing you'll try to do is prove that Jesus was a sinner.

You were shut down and chased out of this forum in your last thread and proven to be a phony and a liar. After a week you return and try to discredit God again claiming the scriptures to be anything but inspired.

And of course you and Rajk are bosom buddies, so we won't see him calling you out for your duplicitous hypocrisy.

Originally posted by @divegeester
The question in my post above the one I am replying to is absolutely bang on topic. 🙂

The fact remains that "Your questions are not 'on topic' as you asserted." - despite your disingenuous claims to the contrary. Not that I expect you to have the integrity to admit it.

Originally posted by @secondson
Embrace this truth. You exhibit exegetical pschizophina.

On the one hand you claim that "the Bible.., is widely open to interpretation and contains inconsistencies, discrepancies and outright contradictions."

Then on the other hand you vehemently defend an interpretation of Leviticus 25 as meaning God condones slavery.

Talk about cherry picking. ...[text shortened]... and Rajk are bosom buddies, so we won't see him calling you out for your duplicitous hypocrisy.

Then there's reality.

You really need to get a grip.

You're just continuing to spew nonsense.