Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dado · 06-21-2004, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Surely many Orthodox Jews believe in both a Flood and an Earth which is less than 10,000 years old

some indeed do, which is a huge irony inside Judaism because the very sages most appreciated by Ortho streams did not, in fact, take the stories literally. there's always going to be minority veering from the normative...

sodium · 06-21-2004, 05:28 PM

In a sense, it's a bit tricky to argue whether an early Christian views Genesis as history. After all, if they relate the story of Genesis, then they could be using allegory as easily as Genesis itself.

I'm not going to argue here that Jesus was an innerantist, just the weaker claim that at least some early Christians thought of Genesis as a historical account.

Theophilus of Antioch, Book II (probably AD 180-185)

Quote:

Man, therefore, God made on the sixth day, and made known this creation after the seventh day, when also He made Paradise, that he might be in a better and distinctly superior place. And that this is true, the fact itself proves. For how can one miss seeing that the pains which women suffer in childbed, and the oblivion of their labours which they afterwards enjoy, are sent in order that the word of God may be fulfilled, and that the race of men may increase and multiply? And do we not see also the judgment of the serpent,--how hatefully he crawls on his belly and eats the dust,--that we may have this, too, for a proof of the things which were said aforetime?

Answer that one, O Atheist? If Genesis isn't true, how come snakes crawl on their bellies ;-)

After giving various highlights of Genesis, he continues,

Quote:

Who, then, of those called sages, and poets, and historians, could tell us truly of these things, themselves being much later born, and introducing a multitude of gods, who were born so many years after the cities, and are more modern than kings, and nations, and wars? For they should have made mention of all events, even those which happened before the flood; both of the creation of the world and the formation of man, and the whole succession of events. The Egyptian or Chaldaean prophets, and the other writers, should have been able accurately to tell, if at least they spoke by a divine and pure spirit, and spoke truth in all that was uttered by them; and they should have announced not only things past or present, but also those that were to come upon the world. And therefore it is proved that all others have been in error; and that we Christians alone have possessed the truth, inasmuch as we are taught by the Holy Spirit, who spoke in the holy prophets, and foretold all things.

Quotes are from the Roberts-Donaldson English Translation, provided at
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theophilus.html

NOGO · 06-21-2004, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dado

well here's a surpise: they're wrong. the people who wrote and preserved Genesis - namely, the Jews - understand it to be a story NOT to be taken literally. this has been the normative teaching for, i don't even know how long, at least 1500 years, probably much longer than that.

Come, come.

I know many orthodox Jews who believe that the earth is 4 thousand years old. The exact number I do not remember but they have told me that this is what they were taught in school and the justification for it cannot be made unless a literal reading of Genesis is made.

This is like that other statement you made about Yahweh not being omniscient for Jews. Take my advise, do a search among Jewish sites on the internet and you will find many that claim that Yahweh is omniscient.

dado · 06-21-2004, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NOGO

...you will find many that claim that Yahweh is omniscient.

yes, they certainly do exist and account for roughly 10% of the overall Jewish population. there aren't many beliefs unrepresented in some stream or substream of Judaism - uniform it is not. my favorite are the group who believe the messiah died in 1994...

Magus55 · 06-21-2004, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FordMadoxBrown

Excellent points there, ichabod.

the idea that Jesus took the OT literaly is a complete fallacy based only on the instances where he refers to Genesis. But despite claims, there is no conclusive evidence that he believed in a 6-day creation.

Ironically, the 'literalists', in their eagerness to read what they want to read into the Bible, show themselves as very 'NON=literaliast'! All the evidence is the other way,. tha Jesus regarded the Bible frankly as a compilation of legends, to be adapted and applied.

Any evidence that Jesus didn't take the OT literally? Jesus' disciples did, and He wouldn't have chosen them if He couldn't have trusted them. According to evolutionists, there was no such thing as Adam and Eve, yet the Bible, including Jesus makes it quite clear that Adam and Eve did exist and are one of the reasons Jesus came to Earth.

dado · 06-22-2004, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magus55

Jesus' disciples did [take text literally].

that's a counterexample t o your point: the x'ian texts are an endless stream of incidents where the disciples were completely befuddled by what jesus was telling them. if they were literalists, it argues strongly that Jeesus was not.

Sven · 06-22-2004, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magus55

Any evidence that Jesus didn't take the OT literally? Jesus' disciples did

How do you know this?

Quote:

According to evolutionists, there was no such thing as Adam and Eve

I think you mean biologists, geneticists (sp?), geologists, etc. You forgot the "common-sense-ists"

Quote:

yet the Bible, including Jesus makes it quite clear that Adam and Eve did exist and are one of the reasons Jesus came to Earth.

How do you know his words are recorded accurately, that is, perhaps only the gospel writers were inerrantists? How do you know that he wasn't speaking allegorically?

So many assertions in such a short post...

Magdlyn · 06-22-2004, 06:57 AM

1)Jesus did not exist.

2)His hagiographers/mythographers (and Paul) did not take the Hebrew Scriptures literally. If they did, they would not take Tanakh verses out of context to imply a "deeper meaning" proved Jesus' life fulfilled them.

Anyone read "The Epistle to the Hebrews" (not an epistle, not sent to the Hebrews) lately, BTW? There you will find your non-literalist early Xtian, in spades.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dado

i can't be the only person who finds literalist anything a crashing bore...

dado · 06-22-2004, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

...they would not take Tanakh verses out of context to imply a "deeper meaning" proved Jesus' life fulfilled them.

oh the irony...using non-literal readings of text A to verify the existence of literalist text B.

hey maggie! how you doing? why aren't the red sox winning?

Magdlyn · 06-22-2004, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dado

hey maggie! how you doing? why aren't the red sox winning?

Dunno. Next time I see the newly returned Trot Nixon, I will ask him to ask Jesus to ask God what the deal is...

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.