What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

What events in the Bible did not actually occur?

Serving Zion said:
You'd better explain yourself because it just looks like an unsupported statement. How can you expect anyone to believe a demon possessed person isn't lost? (James 5:20).

Also why did you introduce sickness? Neither one of us has suggested Eve was sick or that people who have sickness are lost.

No, the speculation is "why did Adam take the fruit that Eve gave her?". Look where it leads us - shedding blood and strangling each other "accept my teaching!!!" .. and yet the scripture doesn't give us the answer to that question. So that's why it's dangerous to speculate. I normally don't do it at all, but I wanted to help humble soul get thinking more about the value of Paul's views. ... How is it that you and I began to exchange blows?
Click to expand...

I have explained myself. See posts #(76) (87) (95).

Because you don't like the explanation.

Quantrill
 
OzSpen said:
Did Jesus tell real parables while on earth? To be parables they needed some analogy with life happenings, e.g. the sower & the seed; the wheat & weeds, etc.

Oz
Click to expand...
Of course.
Jesus ministry was based on parables,,,for different reasons.
A parable is a story, which did not really happen, but that uses
known mechanisms and teaches something moral or of value.

The known mechanism in the case of Jesus was often regarding
farming and vines...and things having to do with the culture of Israel
in His time.

As to why Jesus spoke in parable...
I'm being motivated to start many new threads!
 
Hopeful said:
You don't think the Lazarus/richman story-lesson is a parable?
Click to expand...
Sorry for delay Hopeful.

Some theologians believe The Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19....)
is a parable.

I hesitate to say MOST,,,but I do believe it is MOST ....
theologians believe it is NOT a parable because Jesus
used the real name of a person....why would He use the name of a real person
if it's just a parable? This was the only time that He did not speak in generalities.

So, yes, I agree with the latter.
I believe the story of The Rich Man and Lazarus is a real accounting of what happened
when persons died BEFORE the cross. Jesus made certain teachings using this story...
and I do believe the story is true.

You?
 
Serving Zion said:
You'd better explain yourself because it just looks like an unsupported statement. How can you expect anyone to believe a demon possessed person isn't lost? (James 5:20).

Also why did you introduce sickness? Neither one of us has suggested Eve was sick or that people who have sickness are lost.

No, the speculation is "why did Adam take the fruit that Eve gave her?". Look where it leads us - shedding blood and strangling each other "accept my teaching!!!" .. and yet the scripture doesn't give us the answer to that question. So that's why it's dangerous to speculate. I normally don't do it at all, but I wanted to help humble soul get thinking more about the value of Paul's views. ... How is it that you and I began to exchange blows?
Click to expand...
There's a difference between possession and oppression and to an untrained eye it might not be so easy to know the difference.
All possessed persons are not like in the movies.

I can only say that I know of one person that was either oppressed or possessed and it was Padre Pio.
A real person that lived just about 40 years ago and there were many witnesses that could attest to this.

I haven't followed along well...
what does James 5:20 have to do with this??
 
wondering said:
what does James 5:20 have to do with this??
Click to expand...
Quantrill has said that the fall of Eve is not the same as a person being possessed by a demon, and has suggested that a person who is possessed by a demon might not necessarily be lost. I introduced James 5:20 to show that anyone who is in error is a soul that is destined for death, and ultimately to lead to the conclusion that anyone who is possessed by a demon is lost. Quantrill did not cooperate to produce a conversation to address that disagreement and instead did not acknowledge that what I had asked for in terms of clarification requires clarifying. You can see that for yourself.
 
Serving Zion said:
Quantrill has said that the fall of Eve is not the same as a person being possessed by a demon, and has suggested that a person who is possessed by a demon might not necessarily be lost. I introduced James 5:20 to show that anyone who is in error is a soul that is destined for death, and ultimately to lead to the conclusion that anyone who is possessed by a demon is lost. Quantrill did not cooperate to produce a conversation to address that disagreement and instead did not acknowledge that what I had asked for in terms of clarification requires clarifying. You can see that for yourself.
Click to expand...

Quantrill never suggested any such thing. Quantrill says see post #(123).

Quantrill
 
wondering said:
Sorry for delay Hopeful.

Some theologians believe The Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19....)
is a parable.

I hesitate to say MOST,,,but I do believe it is MOST ....
theologians believe it is NOT a parable because Jesus
used the real name of a person....why would He use the name of a real person
if it's just a parable? This was the only time that He did not speak in generalities.

So, yes, I agree with the latter.
I believe the story of The Rich Man and Lazarus is a real accounting of what happened
when persons died BEFORE the cross. Jesus made certain teachings using this story...
and I do believe the story is true.

You?
Click to expand...
Why then didn't Jesus mention the name of the beggar?
Or list from whom either were descended?
Or their place of residence?
 
Quantrill said:
Quantrill never suggested any such thing.
Click to expand...
Either you are lying or you have forgotten (I suspect the latter is true).

In post #87 you said that the only way Eve could have been healed was by substituting a "life for a life".

In post #113 I showed you the example of the demon-possessed man who had been restored to "his right mind", as an example that Jesus can do the healing without need of an atoning sacrifice.

In post #119 you have said that there is a difference between the condition of fallen Eve and the demon-possessed man.

Therefore, in post #130 I have said that you "said that the fall of Eve is not the same as a person being possessed by a demon" because that is a fact.

In post #115 you have said "We are not talking about just a casting out of demons or a healing of sickness. We are talking about being saved from a lost state. Eve was lost. She was not just sick or had a demon."

Therefore, in post #130 I have said that you "suggested that a person who is possessed by a demon might not necessarily be lost" because that is a fact.

Quantrill said:
Quantrill says see post #(123).

Quantrill
Click to expand...
What you have said in post #123 is not relevant to the cause for saying it.
 
Serving Zion said:
Either you are lying or you have forgotten (I suspect the latter is true).

In post #87 you said that the only way Eve could have been healed was by substituting a "life for a life".

In post #113 I showed you the example of the demon-possessed man who had been restored to "his right mind", as an example that Jesus can do the healing without need of an atoning sacrifice.

In post #119 you have said that there is a difference between the condition of fallen Eve and the demon-possessed man.

Therefore, in post #130 I have said that you "said that the fall of Eve is not the same as a person being possessed by a demon" because that is a fact.

In post #115 you have said "We are not talking about just a casting out of demons or a healing of sickness. We are talking about being saved from a lost state. Eve was lost. She was not just sick or had a demon."

Therefore, in post #130 I have said that you "suggested that a person who is possessed by a demon might not necessarily be lost" because that is a fact.


What you have said in post #123 is not relevant to the cause for saying it.
Click to expand...

You have not been honest in your presentation of my post #(119). What I said was, "The difference between the fall of Eve and one who is sick or demon possessed is not speculation."

There is no inference, no suggestion, here that a demon possessed man may not be lost.

And again, I never suggested any such thing.

My post #(123) is relevant. There I say go back and read my posts #(76), (87), and (95). That explains it. I never suggested or implied what you say I did.

Quantrill
 
Quantrill said:
You have not been honest in your presentation of my post #(119). What I said was, "The difference between the fall of Eve and one who is sick or demon possessed is not speculation."

There is no inference, no suggestion, here that a demon possessed man may not be lost.

And again, I never suggested any such thing.
Click to expand...
You need to go back to your previous post, #115 where you have said "We are not talking about just a casting out of demons or a healing of sickness. We are talking about being saved from a lost state. Eve was lost. She was not just sick or had a demon."

In your next post to me, you said that there is a difference between someone who is "sick or demon-possessed" compared to someone who is lost. That's when I said that you'd better explain yourself, because what you have said in post #115 does not seem to add up with scripture. It seems that you have misunderstood what I was asking you to explain. Let me know if this is not clear enough to you.
 
Serving Zion said:
You need to go back to your previous post, #115 where you have said "We are not talking about just a casting out of demons or a healing of sickness. We are talking about being saved from a lost state. Eve was lost. She was not just sick or had a demon."

In your next post to me, you said that there is a difference between someone who is "sick or demon-possessed" compared to someone who is lost. That's when I said that you'd better explain yourself, because what you have said in post #115 does not seem to add up with scripture. It seems that you have misunderstood what I was asking you to explain. Let me know if this is not clear enough to you.
Click to expand...

Again you misrepresent what I said. The next post of mine after #(115) is post #(119). This is what I said. "The difference between the fall of Eve and one who is sick or demon possessed is not speculation."

There is no suggestion here that a person demon possessed may not be lost. The difference, which when you read the posts I have written is evident, is between redeeming Eve as opposed to casting out a demon or healing of sickness.

What is clear is that you are reading into what I said, something I never said.

Quantrill
 
Quantrill said:
Again you misrepresent what I said. The next post of mine after #(115) is post #(119). This is what I said. "The difference between the fall of Eve and one who is sick or demon possessed is not speculation."

There is no suggestion here that a person demon possessed may not be lost. The difference, which when you read the posts I have written is evident, is between redeeming Eve as opposed to casting out a demon or healing of sickness.

What is clear is that you are reading into what I said, something I never said.

Quantrill
Click to expand...
I think that the disconnect has come through your not properly addressing the point I made in post #113.

I have shown there that the man who had been possessed by a demon was restored to his right mind. It goes on to say that he went back to his hometown and gave glory to God. I think we probably do agree that he had been lost and then restored, based on what you are saying now. What I wanted to show you there is that he was restored to his right mind without an atoning sacrifice, and so therefore it appears that God has the power to restore a person to their right mind without need of "life for a life" as you put it. Therefore I have entertained the speculation that if Adam had been of the right character, he could have asked God to heal Eve and God would be able to do that (because "love covers all transgression") and "all things are possible to the one who believes".

However, the fact is that Adam didn't do that, and instead partook of the fruit that Eve gave to him, and it isn't written why he did that and so we can only speculate about it.

But if you do want to clarify what you meant by drawing the difference in post #115 between Eve who you say was lost and the man of the graveyard whom you say "just had a demon", then I would be able to understand why you have made that distinction.
 
Serving Zion said:
Quantrill has said that the fall of Eve is not the same as a person being possessed by a demon, and has suggested that a person who is possessed by a demon might not necessarily be lost. I introduced James 5:20 to show that anyone who is in error is a soul that is destined for death, and ultimately to lead to the conclusion that anyone who is possessed by a demon is lost. Quantrill did not cooperate to produce a conversation to address that disagreement and instead did not acknowledge that what I had asked for in terms of clarification requires clarifying. You can see that for yourself.
Click to expand...
Will be reading Quantrill's post no. 123 now.

As to James 5:20,,,if everyone that is in error is a lost soul....
most Christians will be lost.


19My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back,
20let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

SZ...James 5:20 is after a list of things we are to do to be good Christians.
It says that if we return A SINNER to the truth, we will save a soul.

A sinner means someone that has returned to a life of sin.
We are called (when possible) to go after a lamb that has gone astray and attempt to bring him back
to the fold.

This says nothing about possession, or a person having incorrect doctrine being lost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top