Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Johnny Skeptic · 09-07-2007, 11:05 PM

I look forward to reading comments from readers.

Johnny Skeptic · 09-08-2007, 05:24 AM

http://www.nigeriansinamerica.com/vb...ead.php?t=6124

In the late 3rd century the pagan philosopher Porphyry stated that promising any criminal that he would be absolved of his sins and enter paradise as long as he was baptized before he died undermined the very foundations of a society of decent human beings. The gnostics regarded a literal belief in the resurrection as the 'faith of fools'. Even the 3rd-century Christian philosopher Origen dismissed literalist Christianity as a 'popular, irrational faith', and stated bluntly: 'Christ crucified is teaching for babes'.

mit · 09-08-2007, 06:53 AM

Delurking ...
I think they absolutely didn't expect us to take the Bible literally. I think it actually shows that the early compilers of the various Bibles were believers and I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt. For example, they believed that Jesus rose from the dead. There were a number of traditions/books in existence that were contradictory about what happened around the resurrection. I think it was more important to them to get all of the versions collected than trying to harmonize it into a single version.

Take a modern example. Say, an important person died suddenly and violently and there were a number of witnesses. If you interviewed the witnesses and they gave different stories about what had happened, you would write up all of the versions.

Michael

the Radio Star · 09-08-2007, 12:05 PM

Lately I've been trying to learn more about the authorship of the Bible (I'm pretty much a noob at Biblical criticism). I've found that it's quite hard to determine who wrote the Bible, let alone their motives. If you narrowed down your question to specific books, such as Genesis or the Gospels, it would help everyone answer.

DBT · 09-08-2007, 06:59 PM

If the creation account in Genesis was not intended to be taken literally - that the world did not come about as Genesis describes - what justification did people have for believing the power of their God? If not their God, then how did the world come about, what else were they supposed to believe... if not in a literal Genesis?

Johnny Skeptic · 09-08-2007, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the Radio Star

Lately I've been trying to learn more about the authorship of the Bible (I'm pretty much a noob at Biblical criticism). I've found that it's quite hard to determine who wrote the Bible, let alone their motives. If you narrowed down your question to specific books, such as Genesis or the Gospels, it would help everyone answer.

For now, Genesis and the Gospels will be fine.

GenesisNemesis · 09-08-2007, 09:05 PM

I'm not so sure that the superstitious people of the bronze-age wanted their holy texts to be interpreted metaphorically.

Doug Shaver · 09-09-2007, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Did Bible writers intend that their writings be interpreted literally?

Some did and some didn't.

gstafleu · 09-09-2007, 09:49 AM

To concentrate on the NT, lets first distinguish between the gospels, the epistles and revelations, and look at the epistles first.

The epistle writers did, in many senses, mot really create religion like e.g. the gospel writers did. Rather, they were more like newspaper columnists who write religious columns: they commented on the religion and gave believers advice. So when it comes to taking things literal, well, yes, they probably meant the advice to be taken pretty literally

. But that is of course not what you are after.

Did e.g. Paul take his beliefs literally? The first question is: what were his beliefs. If you have followed the recent discussions with Earl Doherty at all, you'll know that this is a relevant question. The least that can be said about it is that quite possibly Paul thought of his Christ not as a human being, but as a spiritual/heavenly being. It may well be that he thought that this being had been crucified essentially in heaven, and at the beginning of time. If this is the case, you can see how the question "did he take all this literally" becomes a bit difficult.

If your question is: which parts of the bible did the authors mean to be taken as the kind of history we find in modern history books, you first have to realize that history in its modern sense is a fairly recent phenomenon. But, not to make life too complicated, let us divide the people who deal with myths into 3 classes.

1) The people who actually create myth. They are called mythopoets, and, being poets, they do not mean their stories literally. Rather the stories are metaphors, allegories, trying to put things that are very difficult to put into day-to-day words into these day-to-day words.

2) The priests, who administer the myths to the masses. They should be aware of the allegorical nature of the stories, but often probaly are not.

3) The masses, the hoi polloi. These are often not interested in the allegorical nature, they just want some answers and rules. The easiest way to do that is to take things literally. In the gospels, you will find the masses represented by the disciple Peter, who is the densest of the lot, but nevertheless gets to be the rock on which the church will be built: you do need those masses!

So who were the authors of the bible books? mostly a combination of 1 and 2, with (via oral tradition) a bit of 3 thrown in. The following are some wild guesses on my part. Mark was a 1, a mythopoet, so he didn't mean his story literally. Matthew and Luke were probably a mixture of 1,2 and 3. The gospel of John is apparently a layered document, but parts of it are not just mythical, they are mystical. That means not meant literally in a physical or even mythical sense, but literally in in spiritual sense (I hope that's clear

).

The author of Revelations was a 1. So were the people who generated the genesis story, but then a bunch of 2's, priests, got their hands on it, probably in the 6th century BCE (following Finkelstein and Silberman). Plus, the genesis story--which probably has its roots in Mesopotamia--no doubt has a whole bunch of literalism of type 3, distribution via the masses, in it, administered on its way from Mesopotamia to Jerusalem.

I'm sure you now have your answer

.

Gerard Stafleu

aa5874 · 09-09-2007, 11:15 AM

The official position, as far as I know, of almost all the Christian Churches is that a literal real god-man was born of the Holy Ghost, was really tempted by the Devil, carried out miracles, was transfigured, crucified, resurrected and ascended into heaven.

All the events of Jesus, according to the authors of the NT and the Church Fathers, were witnessed, that is, the birth of Jesus really happened, witnessed by Mary, Joseph, the wise men, and the shepherds. The baptism of the Holy Ghost was witnessed by John the Baptist and the disciples. The transfiguration of Jesus was real, it was witnessed by the disciples. The miracles were all witnessed by, sometimes, thousands of people. His crucifixion was witnessed by Mary Magdalene, Joseph of Arithmathea, and some other Marys. Jesus was seen alive by many, including his disciples, after his arrest.

And his final act of ascension is documented to have been witnessed by his disciples. Acts 1.9, "And when he (Jesus) had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight"

According to the authors of the NT, and the Church Fathers, all events surrounding Jesus were real, literal and witnessed by real people.

09-07-2007, 11:05 PM	#1
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Did Bible writers intend that their writings be interpreted literally? I look forward to reading comments from readers.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-08-2007, 05:24 AM	#2
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	http://www.nigeriansinamerica.com/vb...ead.php?t=6124 In the late 3rd century the pagan philosopher Porphyry stated that promising any criminal that he would be absolved of his sins and enter paradise as long as he was baptized before he died undermined the very foundations of a society of decent human beings. The gnostics regarded a literal belief in the resurrection as the 'faith of fools'. Even the 3rd-century Christian philosopher Origen dismissed literalist Christianity as a 'popular, irrational faith', and stated bluntly: 'Christ crucified is teaching for babes'.

09-08-2007, 06:53 AM	#3
mit Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Australia Posts: 46	Delurking ... I think they absolutely didn't expect us to take the Bible literally. I think it actually shows that the early compilers of the various Bibles were believers and I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt. For example, they believed that Jesus rose from the dead. There were a number of traditions/books in existence that were contradictory about what happened around the resurrection. I think it was more important to them to get all of the versions collected than trying to harmonize it into a single version. Take a modern example. Say, an important person died suddenly and violently and there were a number of witnesses. If you interviewed the witnesses and they gave different stories about what had happened, you would write up all of the versions. Michael

09-08-2007, 12:05 PM	#4
the Radio Star Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: IL Posts: 978	Lately I've been trying to learn more about the authorship of the Bible (I'm pretty much a noob at Biblical criticism). I've found that it's quite hard to determine who wrote the Bible, let alone their motives. If you narrowed down your question to specific books, such as Genesis or the Gospels, it would help everyone answer.

09-08-2007, 06:59 PM	#5
DBT Contributor Join Date: May 2003 Location: ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן ǝɥʇ Posts: 17,906	If the creation account in Genesis was not intended to be taken literally - that the world did not come about as Genesis describes - what justification did people have for believing the power of their God? If not their God, then how did the world come about, what else were they supposed to believe... if not in a literal Genesis?

09-08-2007, 09:05 PM	#7
GenesisNemesis Contributor Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A pale blue oblate spheroid. Posts: 20,351	I'm not so sure that the superstitious people of the bronze-age wanted their holy texts to be interpreted metaphorically.

09-09-2007, 09:49 AM	#9
gstafleu Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: London, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,719	To concentrate on the NT, lets first distinguish between the gospels, the epistles and revelations, and look at the epistles first. The epistle writers did, in many senses, mot really create religion like e.g. the gospel writers did. Rather, they were more like newspaper columnists who write religious columns: they commented on the religion and gave believers advice. So when it comes to taking things literal, well, yes, they probably meant the advice to be taken pretty literally . But that is of course not what you are after. Did e.g. Paul take his beliefs literally? The first question is: what were his beliefs. If you have followed the recent discussions with Earl Doherty at all, you'll know that this is a relevant question. The least that can be said about it is that quite possibly Paul thought of his Christ not as a human being, but as a spiritual/heavenly being. It may well be that he thought that this being had been crucified essentially in heaven, and at the beginning of time. If this is the case, you can see how the question "did he take all this literally" becomes a bit difficult. If your question is: which parts of the bible did the authors mean to be taken as the kind of history we find in modern history books, you first have to realize that history in its modern sense is a fairly recent phenomenon. But, not to make life too complicated, let us divide the people who deal with myths into 3 classes. 1) The people who actually create myth. They are called mythopoets, and, being poets, they do not mean their stories literally. Rather the stories are metaphors, allegories, trying to put things that are very difficult to put into day-to-day words into these day-to-day words. 2) The priests, who administer the myths to the masses. They should be aware of the allegorical nature of the stories, but often probaly are not. 3) The masses, the hoi polloi. These are often not interested in the allegorical nature, they just want some answers and rules. The easiest way to do that is to take things literally. In the gospels, you will find the masses represented by the disciple Peter, who is the densest of the lot, but nevertheless gets to be the rock on which the church will be built: you do need those masses! So who were the authors of the bible books? mostly a combination of 1 and 2, with (via oral tradition) a bit of 3 thrown in. The following are some wild guesses on my part. Mark was a 1, a mythopoet, so he didn't mean his story literally. Matthew and Luke were probably a mixture of 1,2 and 3. The gospel of John is apparently a layered document, but parts of it are not just mythical, they are mystical. That means not meant literally in a physical or even mythical sense, but literally in in spiritual sense (I hope that's clear ). The author of Revelations was a 1. So were the people who generated the genesis story, but then a bunch of 2's, priests, got their hands on it, probably in the 6th century BCE (following Finkelstein and Silberman). Plus, the genesis story--which probably has its roots in Mesopotamia--no doubt has a whole bunch of literalism of type 3, distribution via the masses, in it, administered on its way from Mesopotamia to Jerusalem. I'm sure you now have your answer . Gerard Stafleu

09-09-2007, 11:15 AM	#10
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	The official position, as far as I know, of almost all the Christian Churches is that a literal real god-man was born of the Holy Ghost, was really tempted by the Devil, carried out miracles, was transfigured, crucified, resurrected and ascended into heaven. All the events of Jesus, according to the authors of the NT and the Church Fathers, were witnessed, that is, the birth of Jesus really happened, witnessed by Mary, Joseph, the wise men, and the shepherds. The baptism of the Holy Ghost was witnessed by John the Baptist and the disciples. The transfiguration of Jesus was real, it was witnessed by the disciples. The miracles were all witnessed by, sometimes, thousands of people. His crucifixion was witnessed by Mary Magdalene, Joseph of Arithmathea, and some other Marys. Jesus was seen alive by many, including his disciples, after his arrest. And his final act of ascension is documented to have been witnessed by his disciples. Acts 1.9, "And when he (Jesus) had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight" According to the authors of the NT, and the Church Fathers, all events surrounding Jesus were real, literal and witnessed by real people.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.