Paradisedreams2

B]Do you see anything at all in the OT that can be taken literally, such as: Creation? Adam? Eve? Original sin? The flood? etc., etc., etc...???[/B]

Buckster no not really. I believe in evolution I don't see the creation story to be speaking of this earths begining though it uses its langauge.

What do you think? I mean "beasts with wings",talking donkeys?, Serpent?,"A tree of knowledge"?, "moon turning to blood"? etc.

How can anyone take it literally? The bible itself tells you "how" to read it (in Hosea) It says He speaks in "similitudes". So if "I" a christian who believe approach the book do I negate that fact? Christ spoke in parables and the book of revelation, "give me a break" though christians have movies out with the literal interpretation strung through the thing and YET "God is good" Yeah right! Theres many passages that say God conceals a matter only to disclose it or search it out. I personally don't think what I have seen from Christians present me with enough proof... I mean the verses are there but I need them connected and linked somehow to "the great things God has done for us" and if the spirit of prophesy IS the testimony of Christ then he must be seen or what He has done must be seen because what use have I for the gospels or witnesses unless they can be cross checked?

Apparently Paul the appostle (though I disagree with him on many points that I cannot find in the old testament-the only True source to compare) He seems to come to some place where he says I determine to know nothing but Christ and Him crufied... He talks about the law being a "shadow and NOT the reality" stating Christ is its substance and all things would be summed up in Christ. He speaks about God hiding him (somehow) in His foreknowledge and if thats true it would be wise to look and test it. So THIS is how I read it and test it. A similitude unlike a myth (which serves to unfold part of a "world veiw" of a people, or explain their practice, belief or natural phenomenon) is a visible "likeness" or imaginative comparison. The imitation is its SOLID FORM or its tangible, "visible representation". So if the book is in question due to the fact that its "solid form" is unbelievable (I would agree) but the book doesn't say, "read me that way" you see?

I think its more believable because the images and stories used to represent what its speaking of are so diverse and still bring you back to what its pointing to when you read it in the way it speaks.

So I have started doing just this and I FINALLY find reading this book rewarding and can understand why it says, "The meditation of your word brings Light" (Or Christ) He begins to immerge in the pictures.

So the answer is no I don't see anything in there (as being literal the scriptures even tell you how it speaks and "literally" is not an option given just visible representations.

Paradisedreams2

Schu,

I protest what? and who's "Bert"? Never mind who cares. Wrong defintion to state myth.

Ok "I'm just raving mad" I'm losing sleep and my mind

Ok I give what does not playing with a science set have to do with adding to this violence? And are you some kind example of some kind of this intelectualism that you advocate? I give spill the beans (not promising I'll bite due to flatulence) You need a REAL argument (or an intelligle one)


Why don't I approach it from another side you ask? What makes you think I haven't? Your very presumptious and stereotypical. You are even worse and I find nothing rational or intellectual about you and nothing I truly want to write home about or become.

ROFL!!!!! Warm fuzzies? Oh please how patronizing (I suppose those in your intellectual ranks do this often?) a complete joke come on.


On your "just an aside note" A high school freind of mine was killed in that crash actually He was one of the co pilots.

Hmm I suppose there isn't a pole to see how many people rationalist kill (leaves it open for argument).

Why on earth did I respond?

Buckster

Paradisedreams2

That's a very interesting perspective and answers my questions to you about the OT to my satisfaction. I think I understand where you're coming from on it now.

Perhaps you could expound a bit then on why you see the OT as a selection of writings that do not serve to validate the stories they contain as factual, but the NT apparently does?

(Wait - I don't wish to presume that you hold the NT to be more factual than the OT, I'm only guessing as that's the part with JC, and you do apparently believe that JC is real in every respect?)

Perhaps I should put it another way... I'm wondering if you see the NT as more of the same type of writing as the OT, in that it is not necessarily factual but, rather, spiritual as well, pointing only to the single fact of the reality of JC though those writings?

In other words, do you attribute the stories of the NT to factual historical accounts (especially the supernatural stuff) or do you see them as you do those in the OT?

(Gee, did I ask the same question in enough different ways? Please pardon my excess! )

Paradisedreams2

Perhaps you could expound a bit then on why you see the OT as a selection of writings that do not serve to validate the stories they contain as factual, but the NT apparently does?

Buskster,
I wrote you an entire post and got booted losing this info here, let me try again. a similitude is a visible representation, it is a "likeness" but in itself the solid form is an immitation. The form it took was manifested in the work of christ and all God spoke on concerning what he want he wanted to accomplish.

The "espistles" in the new testament are NOT truth in and of themselves these are just "letters" packed together in a book called the "new testament" these are "workbooks" to be tested and proved and have absolutely no validity on their own merit.The gospels testify to Christ (or the person claiming to Him) but even Christ said he did not accept human testimony. The witnesses are in the Law and the prophets (two witness) The "biggy" is in its testimony becoming established in the "reality" it speaks of.

This is difficult for me to put in words for one reason.... the blanket statement to take it literally or not has a few factors built into this which makes it hard to answer one way or the other in the simple fact that Christ did speak in parables (uttering mysteries of old) so to take the parables literally is not an option. I take literally the "solid form" the visible representation spoken of.

Kind of like a "mirror" one is just a "likeness" the other is its solid form.

So in its visible representation the solid form must be seen in light of the fact that the solid form has made itself manifest.

I certainly need to work on my mode of explanation but does that help any?

Buckster

Paradisedreams2

Frankly, ya lost me there... I thought I had it going on, but then found myself at the end of the road and didn't know where exactly I was or where I'd been.

I'm not too interested in the parables themselves, as they already speak to the question of whether they are based in fact or fiction - understood. Nor very much the Epistles, as they too are mostly the letters of Paul, who never even saw JC.

I'm more interested in your take on the other writings, in particular the miraculous stuff like
virgin birth, walking on water, raising the dead, loaves and fish, and the resurection. Do you see them as factual accounts or as "similitudes" or some such, designed to enhance the story or establish the authority of JC as a god in some way?

Paradisedreams2

Hi Buckster,

Sorry about that its my fault I can't speak that clearly (though I try) I'm usually on this board alot lately but I now have a touch of the stomach bug going around our house apparently I'm pretty busy tommorrow and hope to be feeling better, let me post to you then because I'm out of sorts right now, but I didn't want you to think I forgot you.

Kim

Paradisedreams2

Buckster,

Ok... Do I see the gospels as "factual" I see the facts represented in them as factual yes. Again this is now the "form" of the "similitude". Old testatment (similitude/likeness) and new testament as its solid form. You know I'm NOT speaking of the epistles just the gospels. The epistles are workbooks only not valid in themselves.

The Virgin birth seen in the first chapters of one of the gospels and IS a "similitude" it also finds its "form" on the cross.

Christ said,
"As a Woman giving birth to her child has her pain because her time is come SO IT IS WITH YOU" (saing this to His disciples)

"Woman BEHOLD thy Son" (He's on the cross stating this) This is where the virgin birth truly took place.

Now the world will not see me any longer but you will see me because I live you live. Christ is in you. The Sprit is poured upon ALL flesh.

To "Command these stones to become bread" is to "fulfill" the prophesies thus Christ gave Himself.

Jesus raises Lazarus was a similitude for the day of the cross, the dead raising with His body, "with His stripes we are healed"


Did that help?

Grand Nubian

I'm looking for a verse as well. In the verse it describes God instructing a group of people to have some men visit him every three years. Or, the content is close to this. It's been a long time since I've read it but it's close to that.

If you've read this verse you'll know it.

Thanks in advance for any help.

Buckster

Paradisedreams2,

Ooooooo K...

Well, quite honestly, my brain is somewhat limited to reading into things what are not obviously there to me. I can read between the lines somewhat, even extrapolate a bit from a point of reference using other available data that is recognizably (to me) related. Mostly though, I take things at face value, and expect a writer to say what he/she means in plain, understandable language that will automatically convey the intended meaning within it's own structure.

I guess that's why I have so much difficulty buying into the unending apologetics that surround the Xian's ultimate book of "truth". It seems that the only way they can make any sense of it is to transpose it verse by verse into what they "want" it to say.

To me, it either means what it says, or it says nothing at all. I just can't bring myself to accept one of thousands of interpretations, even if I could somehow decide which of those thousands of interpretations *might* be correct.

Personally, I think if it was really information that the ultimate power in the universe wanted to give to us, he'd have made it easy to understand, even to the most basic of morons he supposedly created.

As that's not the case, I consider it fiction, and not even very good fiction at that. It can't sustain the plot within the basic realm of possibilities, at least, not as written.

But hey, to each his (or in your case, her) own...

Live long and prosper... Good luck with the homeschooling thing.

Paradisedreams2

Buckster,
As you have said,"It should mean what it says"... It SAYS it speaks in similitudes and that is EXACTLY what is says and it "means" it. How have I concluded to appoligize for that fact?

But you are right and we are in agreement "to each his own" not meaning it sarcastically but if anyone wants it take it thats fine, if not no one should make you drink it... This includes me.

The post on the thread adresses a verse taken literally I said it is not "literal" and proved that the sciptures say in themselves that "literal" is not an option. You asked my to show you from them "how" (through demonstration) to see it differently (as in the similitude it says it speaks) and I did just that with its own verses. Its pointing toward "someone" and the similitudes no matter how diverse can be seen to make sense of the whole "law dynamic" and what Christ came to do in various pictures.


It was great speaking with you

[ February 24, 2002: Message edited by: Paradisedreams2 ]</p>