FordMadoxBrown

OK, now I've read it. I think it's very good, clearly intended to be a straightforward readable overview of the problem for people who haven't the time, patience or learning to sink into a long scholarly examination of the subject.

One thing struck me all thr way through though. You make a good job of deconstructingthe Bible as incontrovertible truth but you leave the nagging question, why did so many peopl believe it for so long? I think it would be useul to stress the importance of myth in pre-literate culture , to express profound truths anbout life and death in memorable and vivid form , whcih is what I see as the purpose of the Bible,.

Of course, you may not see the Bible in this way., so I wouldn't want to put words into your mouth. I think it would stretch credibility too far to claim it was all a con-trick to set up a manipulative hierarchy for exploiting peole (though hang on...!) but clearly the writing of the Bible was a long and extremely complex exercise, so they must have had a real belief in its value. I think it would help yuor case to admit a valid reason for all that work. 'Liberal' (i.e. non-Literalist) theologians tend to agree that it was mainly to encourage discipleship, that is, it was written not to 'prove' anything to unbelievers (which is how it is mis-used today by fundamentalists) but for the already faithful.

judge

I think you are correct, to a point. The jews in Jesus day were certainly not expecting Jesus!!!
Consider the question that Jesus is recorded as directing at the
teachers of the law. He ask them how David's son can also be his Lord?
They did not know how this was to be. They did not understand.

How was The descendent of David to be David's Lord if he was to be a military ruler long after David died?
The only answer would be that the annointed one was not to be an earthly military ruler IMO.

Dean Anderson

I've often wondered about the relative age of the two meanings for that word.

Was the valley named after hell because it was unpleasant?

Or was 'hell' named after the valley?

In other words, which came first - the valley called g'henna or the usage of Gehenna as a name of hell?

CX

I believe modern "orthodox" (or "observant") Jews accept the 13th principle of Rabam's 13 Principles of Faith which is the resurrection of the dead at the end of time. Mostly, though Judaism, then and now, concerns itself with THIS life. There is considerable evidence that prior to the exile the Israelites didn't conceive of an afterlife at all except as a sort of shadowy ghost-like existence.

Warthur

ISTR - and I only vaguely remember this so I'd be glad if someone could find some support or otherwise for it - that g'henna the valley came first, and it's been argued that what Jesus was actually saying when he referred to it was that the unrighteous would be killed by God and their bodies tossed into the valley to rot.

judge

As far as I am aware G'henna is just the name of the place. The place was a tip or rubbish dump at the time of Christ and had been a place where even the dead were disposed of.

Boomeister

Carrie,
I found all three parts of "A secular explanation of the Bible" informative. I'm looking forward to a part 4.


Boomeister