ApostateAbe

Well, whenever you have the time, I think it might be worth it, just because it is about the fundamental stuff. I think such an ancient Christian perspective would make sense in light of the reality that they had to explicitly shift their interpretations in favor of a more allegorical point of view, and we do in fact see that shift happening between Mark/Q and the later gospel writings (i.e. "The kingdom of God is within you"). Often, it was the only way to keep the outdated beliefs seeming sensible.

avi

Well, Ben Franklin was an early Christian, or at least an early. But, I don't suppose that he wrote anything allegorical.

He did write about three, but I suspect that those were crooked, not level:

Toto

Ben Franklin was probably best described as a Deist.

mountainman

Forged: Writing in the Name of God -- Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are (or via: amazon.co.uk)

The Bible and Koran were floated by military supremacists at that precise moment they obtained supreme control over their respective empires. This should serve as a dire warning to anyone with some common sense to see that the Bible and the Koran were instruments of political power. Religion is true for the common people, false for the wise, and useful for the ruler. Education has made a greater percentage of the populace wise in the last century or so. "Every day people are straying away from the church and going back to God." [Lenny Bruce]

Doug Shaver

I don't actually disagree with the conservative Christians on that particular point. Where I disagree with them is (1) their assumption that the original authors intended to advocate the same dogmas that modern conservative Christians advocate and (2) their assumption that all of humanity is obliged to agree with whatever the original authors intended to say.

ApostateAbe

We are in full agreement.

gurugeorge

Hmm, the problem is, what was ancient sense? You're talking about a culture steeped in magic and woo-woo - a culture in which miracles were supposed to be some kind of proof that someone was worth listening to. Does that make plain sense? It seems to have done in the ancient sense ...

ApostateAbe

I think you may have misunderstood, so please allow me to clarify. The aphorism's use of the phrase, "plain sense," means a literal interpretation of a part of text. Another way of saying the aphorism would be: "A literal interpretation of the text is probable if we have sound reason to expect that the society in which it was written would accept a literal interpretation of the text."

aa5874

Well, how are your "Ignorant Christians" different to people who claim Jesus was an ordinary man when he was described as the Child of a Holy Ghost?

It is quite astonishing that people who IGNORE what the Bible says and read into the texts whatever they'd like the texts to say, having very little if any concern for what the texts actually say.....".

1. For example, what do your "Ignorant Christians" say about Matthew 1.18-20?

2. What does ApostateAbe say about Matthew 1.18-20?

3. What does the texts ACTUALLY say?

Matthew 1.18-20 Please tell me who has read into the texts what they'd like the texts to say "having little if any concern for what the texts actually say"?

Is it NOT common sense to accept that people of antiquity BELIEVED a myth fable about the Child of a Holy Ghost instead of reading into the Biblical texts whatever you would like the texts to say?

It is COMMON SENSE to leave the Jesus stories EXACTLY as they are found just as written evidence, written statements, cannot be ALTERED by the reader of the written statement.

It is COMMON SENSE that the reader of a written statement cannot ALTER any part of a written statement to make it compatible with whatever they BELIEVE is the truth or whatever they BELIEVE should have been written.

That is comparable to TAMPERING with EVIDENCE in court trials.

It is COMMON SENSE that all writings from antiquity MUST be left unaltered by the reader just like the writings in a CAVE are LEFT UNALTERED by the reader.

It is what the writings of antiquity say that is most significant not what the reader BELIEVE should have been written.

By the way, ApostateAbe has written his OWN Gospel, "the Gospel of Abe" by reading into the Biblical texts whatever HE liked the texts to say," having little if any concern for what the texts actually say".

"Ignorant Christians" have NOT re-written the Gospels".

It is COMMON SENSE that the reader of a writing of antiquity should not ALTER the writing.

beallen041

Ehrman from Forged: