Summations Only

I'd grant that as possible, if the whole bible doesn't show the ability to believe the absurd or questionable stuff. If Jesus doesn't believe the story, in the context the bible demonstrates, he should outright say.... " like the myth of Jonah". ( Because we know his listeners demonstrate the ability to accept a lot of questionable stuff). I think the ability to believe the absurd and superstitious, makes it entirely likely the character portrayed as Jesus, was meant to believe that. ( In my opinion)There are passages suggesting the Jesus character believes Noah, Sodom/Gomorrah, Adam/Eve, the snakes biting people for complaining about lack of food.
One could say the character Jesus doesn't believe these but just references them. I maintain that seems unlikely because of the same reason as above. ( My view)

You have a literal quote on every post on your signature.As another point of note. You know Herod had a historian. Ya, the guy recorded everything. Think he recorded the wise men meeting him. Nope.So no I don't accept your selective literal justification, where if you don't like it you re- interpret but if you do, you read it literally.
This for me is disingenuous and not a fair way to debate. Edited by Golffly, : No reason given.

Sure. I'll dig up the source. It's not Josephus.
You know Josephus was a historian correct? Kind of like when saints are resurrected it's " strange" and a re-interpretation follows. Lazarus resurrection..... turns out he wasn't dead.)) That kind of stuff? What you are doing is rewriting what you don't like.

You're still using the ole argument of convenience stuff. You were adamant to Faith they were superstitious. Now, since it's been pointed out to you, that it might not help you if the NT writers were superstitious, you are back pedalling really fast.Edited by Golffly, : No reason given.

As a new guy, I have not found much difference between the two. The only difference I see is GDR seems to have the unique talent of determining when the bible should be read literally and when you don't. The ability seems to coincide nicely with his own personal motivation. So if he doesn't like it there are two options available 1) Claim that it's silly I should read it literally or 2) Rewrite what the words actually say.
But if he likes what the words say.. well obviously that is read literally.. And I believe GDR is not aware at all his does this.

Okay this is interesting you were in complete agreement ancients were superstitious. Once it was pointed out, sure they are, and so are NT writers. The retraction started.The ancients are FAR more superstitious than we are today
( There is lots and I hope you appreciate the effort)Creatures of myth:
-Leviathan (sea monster) God defeats them or plays with them
Psalm 74:13-14, Job 41;1- Unicorn Job 39:9-10, Num 23:22, Deut 33:17, Isa 34:7- Dragons Deut 32:33, Isa 34:13, Mic 1:8- Satyrs ( half man, half goat) Isa 13:21- Flying serpent Isa 30:6- Fire serpent Deut 8:15Magic:
Gen 30:14-24 Mandrake plant to help bear a childGen 30: 25-43 Speckled or spotted sheep produced by mating in front of specially peeled treesSamson's long hair supposedly gave him strengthHandkerchief's and aprons from body of Paul help cure disease Acts 19:11-12The shadow of Peter has benefits Acts 5;15A garment of Jesus has healing power Mark 5:28-29Divination ( a form of fortune telling):Here are some "diviners" 1 Sam 6:2, Acts 16:16Analysis of thrown sticks or the liver predicts events Ezek 21:21Necromancy ( consulting the dead) Deut 18:11, Kings 21:6Urimm and Thummim are lots used where the answer is yes or no: 1Sam 14:41
Exod 28:30Dreams and Visions:
Acts 2:17 Num 12:6I could do this all day long. This is only a small part of bible superstition. It was a tonne of works. So the biblical ancients are far more superstitious than today. It's ubiquitous and rampant in the bible.Edited by Golffly, : spellingEdited by Golffly, : Grammar, addition

Somebody asked about Pilate, in terms of support for an assertion of mine. ( I think it was No Nukes but could be GDR)My contention is the trial is without precedence. That is that type of trial farce had never happened under Pilate.
The source of this is,
Haim Cohn ( Attorney General of Israel) The Trial and Death of Jesus
pg 98, 112-113" The Gospel writers get their facts wrong, sometimes ridiculously so"
" The trial is incompatible with multiple well established provisions of ancient Jewish law"
These are listed as inconceivable
- meeting by night
- conducting a trial in secret
- High priest acting as interrogator himself
- involving the crowd
- letting crowd influence verdict
The conclusion is this trial likely never occurred.
There is no mention by historians of a trial either.( Other sources: Legatio and Gaium ( cited in Cohn)
Wells, The Historical Evidence of Jesus pg 14-15

Sorry no nukes. Don't want to upset you.
We had agreement on superstitious, then we didn't.
You asked for support. I have given plenty.
I apologize if I over stepped.

I understand his point.
Go through that list and ask ourselves how many people today believe that stuff.
We can also add ghosts to the list.
They were way more superstitious. Not stupid. Just lacking knowledge and these superstitions were an attempt to understand or explain. I believe.
Science changed that.

I ask again, how many of that list I gave can we expect the general population believes today?
Throwing arrows to predict the future. Consulting the dead for future events. Reading the liver for future predictions. Unicorns, half men half goat, fire breathing dragons,
It's a pretty good bet if they had exposure to Bigfoot, aliens, natural remedies.. They'd accept that just fine.
I gave a list by my estimation is perhaps 10 percent of what is in there.
In a book purportedly inspired by god and true. We aren't discussing a book of admitted myths. We have a respected book discussing all of this like it's not unusual at all. I think it's clear it wasn't unusual but common.
It is mostly inconceivable we can think of a respected book today, mentioning things like this as if they are reality.
I see no logical way a person can conclude anything except they were far more superstitious.

Jar if you can go through that list, written in a respect book, and say they were not more superstitious than today because there is still superstition today, there is nothing more I can say.
If we can say this was one of the most respected compilations of the time.
Compare that to whatever you deem the more respected books today... and picture that book spewing myth like it was reality.
Ask yourself what general environment must have existed then.

These same people literally believing the bible, can be completely logical in other areas of life. It seems to me, the religious part of the brain is impervious to logic. I think religion is poison. As far as Jesus taking demons out of people and inserting them into two thousand pigs...that likely supports two things 1) they are superstitious and 2) the writer is making the whole thing up. We have far more knowledge because of science. Far less superstition because of science. We would have more people believing in reality if they hadn't be thoroughly indoctrinated with religious bunk and taking comfort knowing others believe bunk. So they can drive the bunk into their kids and repeat the cycle. People today, in general, have an idea about lottery odds and random. We won't have many saying god is determining the winner. They also won't write it in a respected book, as an aside that passes without comment, because it's not unusual god effects the results. We know god has nothing to do with it. The ancients sure didn't, and if there was questions about that, it's certainly not reflected well in the writing of esteemed individuals. As you know, The literacy rate was very low. Say around 5 percent. Then, unlike today, far fewer could actually write. Say less than one percent. So what we have is the cream of the crop writing and believing this superstitious stuff. One can only envision the depths of superstition in the vastly more populous uneducated.It takes no imagination to realize we can not relate to the prevalent superstition driving these people. My point is and has always been...these are the type we have writing these books. The books are written by incredibly superstitious people who are not credible to write about incredible events like virgin birth, miracles or resurrection.
Not only do they demonstrate the ability to accept the absurd easily, they are not even eye witnesses and they are bias as well. The bible writers are not credible or trust worthy. In my opinion.

Thank you again. I was finally able to figure the chat thing out. But not on this computer I am on now. I can't do it. I must apologize again. The computer I can do it on is beside our bed room, and my lovely wife is sleeping. I can't use it at present.

For sure I agree. GDR is similar to the way I was. Believing certain things and not others.
The point of realization for me was once I could accept, using only the bible, there is no more reason to disbelieve Noah, than there is to believe resurrection. The distinction of fact/fiction was based only on I what I wanted/ needed to believe. When looked at unbiased resurrection fails as easily as Noah's myth.
But for sure GDR is debatable and rational and a very smart guy. Unlike, true literalists we don't have total delusion, and the inability to debate them at all. Literalists are consistently deluded as you say.

I guess we could add a billion or so Muslims and a billion or so Hindus and others to the popularity contest.
The 5, 10, 15 million ( depending on how critical one is of numbers) of Mormons are also going to achieve total domination and belief in Mormonism over time. So we'll get some more billions there ( not that I believe a word I just wrote about ultimate Mormon world popularity)
Anyway the popularity contest, as No nukes says, has proven quite a poor argument.
The once deceived, it proves hard to convince people they have been fooled, is universal regardless of the religion though.Edited by Golffly, : Messed up