quote:
What part of message 28 did you not understand?
I understood what you asked in
Message 28, but it wasn't an answer to my question. It also wasn't consistent with your opening post. Quite frankly since you supposedly understood what jar was saying in
Message 26, I was surprised that you even asked that question. It showed me you still didn't understand.
You also don't seem to understand the literal Biblical method of interpretation. This obviously doesn't include people who just "do their own thing" as you are.
Biblical Literalism
The essence of this approach focuses upon the author's intent as the primary meaning of the text.[4] Literal interpretation does place emphasis upon the referential aspect of the words or terms in the text. It does not, however, mean a complete denial of literary aspects, genre, or figures of speech within the text (e.g., parable, allegory, simile, or metaphor).[5] Also literalism does not necessarily lead to total and complete agreement upon one single interpretation for any given passage.
There are two types of literal interpretation: Letterism and the historical-grammatical method.
Letterism attempts to uncover the meaning of the text through a strict emphasis upon a mechanical, wooden literalism of words. This approach often obscures the literary aspects and consequently the primary meaning of the text.
The historical grammatical method is a hermeneutic technique that strives to uncover the meaning of the text by taking into account not just the grammatical words, but also the syntactical aspects, the cultural and historical background, and the literary genre.
As jar pointed out in
Message 35, Christianity didn't really get a boost after Jesus died.
Until after the destruction of the temple, Christianity was still a sect of Judaism.
Reading if you're interested:
Early Christian WritingsThe Spread of ChristianitySpread of ChristianityRome and Christianity
Needless to say your question in
Message 28, is not based on the Biblical text.
Larni writes:
What I mean is that (presumably) Christians take the ressurection of Jesus as 'actual factual'.
Why is this not a metaphor for a religion experiencing a boost when the cult leader dies?
According to your opening post, you want to look at the text.
Larni writes:
How do people who use the Bible as a bases for their Christianity decide what is literal and what is not?
Some bits are specifically stated as parables but others (Leviticus, I'm looking at you!) seem to be specific statutes that are either ignored or rebranded and not literal.
Is there a useful way to categorise literal verses from metaphorical?
Message 1
So pardon my confusion, when your discussion flow is not consistent.
Pardon me for trying to give you better tools to work with and means to a better understanding.
Flounder on!