This is debatable, but probably true to an extent...still, it is not a history book, and people shouldn't read it as such.




In my experience, Christians pick and choose which events from the new testament they take literally...it seems that each individual Christian has his/her own interpretation on this. I personally think that it is a mistake to take anything in the bible literally, but you can believe what you want.

though the Bible has value as a historic document.

And the events of the new testament are taken litreally.

The bible records historical events, and like any document from long ago can tell us alot about the time in which it was written- thus it has value as a historic document.

As to the second name me an event in the new testament that is not taken litreally? I wasn't awear of any such interpretations, at least in the mainstream. Sure you aren't thinking of the new testament?

foolish one:rolleyes:

Yes, I edited that response when I realized you meant "value as a historic document", rather than being like a book of historic facts.



Note I said "in my experience"; this is from personally talking with people who consider themselves to be Christian; most people I have personally talked to say that they don't actually believe in things like a virgin birth or Jesus turning water into wine...though of course they might be taught that.



Well, excuse me sir. :sarcastic:

I hit submit instead of preview, and then realized that I misinterpreted what you had said...somehow 3 posts came out of it.

though the Bible has value as a historic document. And the events of the new testament are taken litreally.

As to the second name me an event in the new testament that is not taken litreally? I wasn't awear of any such interpretations, at least in the mainstream. Sure you aren't thinking of the new testament?

as to your experiance, well, I don't consider these people to be christians- to be a christians is to believe in the ressurection, that is simply fact. If you believe in that miracle then there is no logical reason to disbelieve others.

firstly, fair enough
as to your experiance, well, I don't consider these people to be christians- to be a christians is to believe in the ressurection, that is simply fact.

and finnally you are still a fool!:bigsmile:

The Bible is an historic document in the same way Homer's work is an historic document. They are mythologies which draw, at least in part, from events which probably did occur. But historical accuracy is not the point of the texts, and very little historic accuracy remains. The idea is not to have a modern historic document, but a mythological history to unite some community.

Some readers do take the New Testament literally, but this is not universal among Christians.



All events. Nothing in the New Testament should be read literally. Literal, fundamental interpretation is a modern development, and even being modern, does not represent the mainstream in Christianity around the world. Most Christians still believe that at least some parts of the New Testament should be taken figuratively. Some, like myself, think the whole of the text should be read figuratively just like any other scripture.


No, that is not a fact.

So now you determine what it means to be Christian? That's nice...:cool: There are other threads where we can debate what it means to be Christian, or how most Christians interpret the bible. The premise of this thread seems to be that Christians are somehow more prone to mass fear than non-Christians...still haven't seen evidence for this.



Thanks for the personal attack, now this "discussion" is over...

firstly I didn't claim otherwise, though it has more than Homer.

as to litrealism you have misunderstood me. I agree that the fundamentalist approach is modern, alien and genreally awful. I mean that the actual events, specifically the miracles are meant as literal.

The words, language, commandments and speechs are of course open completly to interpretation for a number of reasons. There may be some miracles that are recorded that are not purely as recorded, but miracles such as the virgin birth, ressurection and the acension are fundamental to being a christian.

To disbelieve them is to cease being christian. That is not to say you cannot but that to do so falls outside of any accepted defenition of what it is to be christian. To disbelieve in the central events of christs life is an acceptable viewpoint, though I would disagree with it, but to do so and claim to be christian is not acceptable.

There may be some miracles that are recorded that are not purely as recorded, but miracles such as the virgin birth, ressurection and the acension are fundamental to being a christian. To disbelieve them is to cease being christian.

This is just incorrect. Being a Christian does not necessitate believing in any certain event depicted in the Bible. A Christian follows Christ's teachings.

The word Christian comes from the latin christianus, which can be literally translated as "follower of Christ".

these events are christs most important teachigns. It is these examples that hes wishs us to follow.

Christ teaches with parables. The message and the meaning/significance behind the "events" are the teachings. Whether or not they actually took place is irrelevant. You don't need to believe the miracles actually took place in order to believe in the message of the parables.

well I mean that the accounts of christs life, are just that, even if you view it as skewed, whereas the oddysey is an intentional fiction.

I would not agree but that is somewhat unresolvable

again I can't help it if you think my interpretation of the bible is literal, I can only say it is not

The significance, whether or not you agree with it, is still vast. The immaculate conception is vital to the doctrine of the trinity. If Christ is the son of God, then he cannot have been conceived by a human. Also mary cannot have been morally upright by their standards if the child was conceived out of wedlock.

The New testament was not 'written' it was gathered. There are a number of gospels, some written quite late on, others written very close to the time of christ. The ressurection is confirmed in all of them, including the letters of Paul within twenty years of christs acension. There were no christians reading the original greek and disbelieving in the ressurection. The concept of the ressurection is fundamental because without it there is no salvation. The concepts of the forgivness of sins and christs dieing for us and his ressurectiona as the defeat of death are, as any preist will tell you, the central beliefs of christianity.

where the hell else would you turn? there are a few books not added to the new testament that you might turn to, but they do not dispute the most fundamental points.

I am awear that there have been a numbe of heresys over the years. Your naive interpetation of them will not change their nature. There are differing views within a certain range of acceptability and then there is heresy. Do not confuse the two.

these events are christs most important teachigns. It is these examples that hes wishs us to follow.

if you look only to the parables you reduce the bible to a simple guide of morality, as opposed to a narrative, a philosophy and an account.

which is an essentially meingless statement. Where else would accounts of his existance exist? The romans had no interest in documenting his life, nor the jews, so who else would do so? and who would inspire the creation of a new faith but an individual such as christ?

again, I simply regard the miracles as literally true, a highly mainstream not neccersarily fundamentalist view. Fundamentalists agree with it but this does not make it fundamentalist.

Which was later judged to be of less value than the other gospels. most of the other gospels do uphold it so it is logical to imagine that the majority view is the more accurate one

however the concept of relations is central to the trinity. Gods relation to Jesus is one of father and son. Humans cannot hold an equal posistion to christ in relation to the father or it would not be a trinity at all.

They challenged many of the views of the jewish community, but not that one.

Thomas again being the minority exception. and you yourself attack the scriptures on the basis of the time lapse- the gospel of thomas was written, at the earliest time even suggested, in 60AD, and possibly as late as 140AD. Even at best thats 40 years after paul, who confirms the ressurection.

It is possible for a politician to turn up to a press conferance naked screaming 'anarchy rules!' but this does not make him a politician for very long.

Firstly it is not in greek but in hebrew that the possibility arises.

Some have postulated that as virgin and young girl have been used interchanbly in Ugaritic, a cousin to hebrew, that this might be the same in hebrew, and thus that the word virgin infact means simply young girl. Even regardless of the tenous nature of these claims there is another objection. The reason for this interchanability may be that the state of being a young girl is seen as defined by virginity- one is not one without the other, thus it is not truly a double meaning at all.

Because they do not equate to a logical, synthesis whole. They do not form a faith. Additionally one cannot have large scale organised religion if your defenition of your faith is allowed to be changed at will by any crackpot who turns up with a new edition of the bible.

Hardly political ends in the time at which the assertions that you refer to were being posited - denial of christs divinity, his ressurection, the virgin birth etc.... was mainly a problem in the early church.

The heretodox views were challenged because if the had been allowed to flourish they would have destroyed the very basis for christianity- it would have been a splintered and far more unpleasent faith.

Also the nature of the overcoming of hersys in the early church was not the inquistion or somthing, but rather organised councils where agreements on matters of faith and christianity were established.

For instance in the councils of carthage and nicea the creed was established, arianism debunked and an inumerbale number of points agreed upon. This is not some kind of liberal rainbow where all views can harmlessly swim around, but the very basis and foundation for a new faith, a defenition of the entire universe and our understanding of it. There was not room for wildly diverging views.

Because the scriptures record his words and the accounts of his diciples. Perhaps they are distorted but they are still recordings. Also the very fact the scriptures exist demonstrate Christs existance. Why else would they be written?

I never denied the parables were important, but to claim they are the only thing of significance in the new testament is ridiculous.

My question is, are we fear mongering? These posts up here are from people that believe they know God and what Christianity is and these are people that surround me.

I think a good many are. But I believe it goes even deeper...

... with respect to the election results: How typical is it, for those who's candidate has lost, for those supporters to raise their voices to preach doom and gloom? Well, from what I've seen, this happens nearly every election (for every losing party and with every outcome).

To hear proclamations that now the Apocalypse is upon us, that evil has come and a dark cloud of moral degradation shall now encircle us surprises me not at all. I heard the other day that assassination threats, come to the attention of the U.S. Secret Service, has reached an all-time high. Again, not surprising given the history of the opposition.

Fundamentalists; of any sort, are the most volitile sort of people to rile up. Example: I live in Missouri (one of the states "on the edge" during the election), the number of calls from Republican agencies was completely over the edge. The spam mail I received, hinting (many times not so subtly) that "The end is near if Obama wins!" was also overwhelming; the sheer quantity of this kind of material was disturbing.

Fear mongering; yea probably, but more of a testimonial human nature in the face of losing - akin to that "Don't tell me I didn't tell ya so when the End comes!"-mindset. Watch the email, the flyers and fundementalist television shows: The first crisis encountered there'll be more of this doom preached.

People love to use the "told-ya so" tactics. An unfortunate nature of the beast.

Thanks

We have accounts of individuals similar to Jesus, so why not Jesus? The lack of historical evidence for the existence of Jesus is not meaningless - for the historian it's terribly important.

The Christian faith could very well have begun as a cult centered around a mythological character, Jesus, who's supposed exploits grew and changed as more and more writers invented narratives about his life.



To read the Bible, any part of the Bible, as literally true is to take a fundamentalist view. You may not be a fundamentalist in the style of Jerry Falwell, but by reading the Bible as literally true makes you a fundamentalist.



Hold on a second - it is not at all logical to accept the majority view simply because said view in the majority.
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Gospel of Thomas was not rejected from canon because it was thought to be of less value, it was rejected for political reasons.



Let's be careful - there is more than one view of the Trinity. In the Greek Orthodox tradition (where the Trinity was first developed into a theological dogma), the concept of the Trinity is just a meditation on the infinite nature of God. This is a bit different than the Catholic dogma of the Trinity.

And humans most certainly can be thought to be equal to Christ with respect to God. Again, the Lord's Prayer confirms that we are all the children of God. In this way, we might take the Trinity to suggest that God is in all of us - a notion which is not alien to Christianity.



What brings you to that conclusion? If Mary was a young, unmarried woman as the Hebrew states, for her to be pregnant is a challenge to that very tradition.



Actually, the early date is 50AD, which would mean that Thomas was written either just before Paul began to write or that Thomas was written at the same time that Paul began to write. The author of Thomas and Paul were contemporaries.

Either way, the issue of time is irrelevant - my point is that Christians can very well reject the notion of a literal resurrection (which is true because Christians do not have to read the Bible literally) and that Christians might even reject resurrection altogether depending on which texts they utilize as scripture. Because Christians can use Thomas as scripture, Christians can be Christian without the story of Jesus' resurrection.



What's your point? If this was supposed to be an analogy, it's a false analogy. Having beliefs outside of the mainstream does not make someone a non-Christian.



The Hebrew was mistranslated, so virgin was incorrectly used in the Greek.



The Hebrew word, almah, means young maiden and implies that she is unmarried, hence the assumption of virginity. But, as we all know, to be unmarried is not necessarily to be a virgin.



Except they do form a faith - apocrypha has been used throughout history by Christians. The suggestion that apocrypha is not logical is a sham. Further, certain apocryphal texts have from time to time been used with other apocryphal texts. Even better, apocrypha has, and is, used by mainstream Christian denominations.

Religion need not be "large scale" nor even organized to be religion. Christianity is not monolithic, there are many different ways to be a Christian, many of which are mutually exclusive.



And the early Chruch was a highly politicized arm of the crumbling Roman Empires. These religious disagreements were theology to the scholars, but interests of political authority to the Bishops and Imperial officials.



This was the sort of argument used by the mainstream Bishops of the time - but just because political power brokers, the Bishops, said nasty things about heterodox views is in no way evidence that what they said was true. Athanasius and his peers were powerful politicians.



Sort of. After the meetings, some Bishops returned home and instutited campaigns of terror against heretics. Heretics were killed, driven from their homes, ect. The agreements, where enforced, were enforced with brutality against the heretics.



There was no room for a variety of beliefs because Constantine wanted a united Christian Church to function as the main administrative body for his vast and tumultuous empire.

After the Nicean Creed was established, many of the Bishops who voted in favor of the Creed promptly returned to their congregations and resumed teaching a brand of Christianity that contradicted the Nicean Creed.



And yet, even if Jesus did exist, not a single author (historic author) of those Gospels ever knew Jesus.

The existence of Scripture does not demonstrate that Jesus existed historically. Does the mention of Enkidu in Gilgamesh demostrate that Enkidu existed? Not at all. Not in the least. Even the historical existence of Gilgamesh is not demonstrated by the mythology - historians only began to accept the historical existence of Gilgamesh after they found evidence of his rein.



And here I agree with you. However, you have to admit that even if we only looked at the parables, we would not be reducing Jesus' teaching to something simple and unphilosophical.

perhaps I need to make somthing clear. I do not have any objection to people having differing views of the bible. However what troubles me is that they feel they have the right to call themselves christians, co-opting the meaning of the word and the faith in general to their own ends.