Historical antecedents to modern-day Christian fundamentalism

quote:

---

Paul gave up a very lucrative career as a leading Pharisee to spend his life as an itinerant preacher, in and out of jail until he was put top death. Making up tales about Jesus was not actually the greatest of career moves.

---

There have been many who give up a lucrative career to spend their lives as devout adherents to their religion, spending time in and out of jail for following the tenets of their religion until ultimately being executed.Does the fact that this happens to them make what they believed true?Or rather, is it merely a comment upon their own conviction and nothing more?

When a lawyer is trying to build a case the first thing that they look for is motive. Why on earth would they do that? I would agree that having seen Christ crucified and then resurrected, they likely did go back and connect some of the dots that they hadn't connected earlier. That doesn't mean that the dots shouldn't have been connected, it was just that they hadn't done it earlier.In a way the example you use kinda proves the point. If they were going to make things up to make them fit you'd think they would do a better job. My only suggestion is that it was part of the oral history or possibly in some other Jewish text that existed at the time.I have to agree that the theory that you have proposed regarding the verse from Matthew, (as written and not having any further knowledge of it myself) is very interesting.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

The latter.

But why is that any different than what I am doing, or jar for that matter? Deciding what is metaphor isn't always easy but I believe that is one reason God gave us wisdom.In the end though we both agree that we are to gain spiritual wisdom by understanding the message behind the story which holds true whether the story is literally true or not.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Well, but it is from my posts that you judge me a "literalist," so maybe you should be the one to say what the difference is.I would never use the phrase "message behind the story" myself, let alone "whether the story is true or not." Perhaps that is a clue. The message is right IN the story, AND some of the stories are pregnant with prophecies, implications, symbols galore -- REAL symbols, not the merely mental kind but the kind that are embedded in real situations and refer to future real situations. Nothing airyfairy. And then there are teachings, Jesus teachings in particular, which don't use real situations but fictional ones. There's an awful lot of material to muster if we really wanted to discuss all this and I'm just not up to mustering it. Maybe later. Maybe.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It is vague so I'll just attempt to provide my own understanding. I would suggest that it is someone who is insistent that all of the Bible is to be read as if it were an actual physical happening except when clearly specified otherwise. (ie: The Earth was created in six days.) You're right that the phrase "message within the story" is much more accurate than "behind the story". Also "whether the story is true or not", should be "whether the story is metaphorical or not". I should think these things through more before I hit "submit reply". I maintain though that the message within the story is just as true whether the story is metaphorical or not. The thing about telling a greater truth within a metaphor is that the use of metaphor gives the writer much greater opportunity to explain the greater meaning. The important thing is the spiritual message that is being passed on through the physical story metaphorical or not.Greg

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Symbols are always real.Symbols have the power to fascinate because they address something real in us and we respond--intuitively, sensorily, emotionally, intellectually. They always address real situations.If they did not do this they would not be symbols.'Airyfairy' is a dismissive term used by one who has been indoctrinated to think that symbolic reality is not real enough.In matters of faith symbolic meaning is all you have. It is only through symbols that unseen realms may be spoken of at all. This is a valid approach to biblical literature, and a fruitful one. Some people do take the story as a story and mine what is in it. They leave open issues that lie outside the narrative, such as factual events, archaeological discoveries, the priorities of science or pseudoscience, etc. They accept the story as a literary expression and let it speak to them as such.Some people are very good at this. The names Everett Fox and Phyllis Trible come to mind. They know how literature works. They respect the text.This is not what you do. And that's why you are no good at the approach you say you use.First, a clarification: what is meant here, I'm sure, is 'whether the story is factual or not.' Truth is expressed and apprehended in ways other than fact. That is the point we are discussing.You are eager for your stories to be fact. For that reason you cannot concern yourself solely with what is in a story, as you say. You have axes to grind, scores to settle.One can indeed concern oneself with finding truth in a story regardless of 'whether the story is factual or not.' This is a valid approach: put truth first and leave the rest open. In the case of ancient stories rich in symbols, this is a very healthy way to do things.This approach to story lets you think about the things the story says are important. It saves you the trouble of imagining super-genomes and vapor canopies, and it saves you the ignominy of seeing these fantasies--simultaneously pseudoscientific and nonbiblical--exploded by real facts.One can have truth instead. One can let story be story and science be science, and have reality all around._Edited by Archer Opterix, : Clarity.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Clarity.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo repair.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

uh huh, yet i don't see how you can claim the stories they wrote down are about jesus, its just inferrence, it makes what they believe wrong when there is no evidence that they are, sorry but other than the claim that its about jesus, theres nothing to indicate its about jesus. unless you make what they do symbolic of something the writers never knew about, why believe you can pull double meanings out of scripture that doesn't work, but for one verse, its grasping at straws but you just believe there is more than one meaning, but you have no evidence this is true. what if they are right about what they believe? by the way the law is part of the jewish scripture, the talmud is the written down version of the oral part of the torah
the jews don't make up pointless laws like the people jesus accused of doing, how about you go learn what the jews believe for a change instead of claiming they are wrong all the time? he called himself the son of man, a title for a prophet of god. in his time? when was that? before or after they suposibly had him killed?
who are you talking about? i'm talking about the writers of the torah, it was a book about their beliefs and interaction with god, it has nothing to do with jesus but even the authors of the NT didn't think everything in the OT was history, and anyway i was talking about all of the books in the bible, including the NT. its sad when you flipflop saying that its all one book then use one part to "prove" the truth of the other i would but jesus doesn't say anything in the NT, its all these other guys who claim to know what he said, i never see "this is the authobiography of the son of man" in there just some guys beliefs about someone they never met what about isiah where people claim its about satan? the latin translation says lucifer, but its the only verse in the bibles now thats translated that way now, all the rest that say lucifer its translated as morning. this is taken as being about satan, since they called him the morning star and he fell. but the text at the begining of the chapter says its about the king of tyr, who called himself heliel son of the morning. people claim this is a double meaning but the jews didn't write it this way, it was mocking the king of tyr for betraying god so jesus has MID?

I'll think about this more tomorrow I guess, but it just occurred to me to ask,All you who think the Creation or Flood stories were just metaphors, who on earth do you think wrote them, and how stupid wouild that person have to be to write them as if they were factual, then go right on to write the history of Abraham and the beginnings of Jewish history? If you think more than one person wrote Genesis, why wouldn't later writers put in a note indicating that some parts were to be read as metaphors or instructive stories?How on earth can there be this straightforward historical progression all the way from Genesis 1:1 through the end of the book if some of it is metaphorical and some of it is history? YOu have to do violence to the organization of the book to remove some parts of it from the historical narrative to turn them into metaphors. There is a straight progression from Adam and Eve through Cain and Abel through Seth, named as son of Adam and Eve, who was the founding patriarch of the line of patriarchs of Genesis 5 down to Noah and his three sons, actual human beings, all of them. Then we have the story of teh Flood for the next few chapters, and then afterward you get the genealogy of their descendants in Genesis 11. Sure sounds like real stuff going on, real people in real history. And by the end of the genealogy we're down to Abraham, whose story gets going in Genesis 12 and continues on to the end of the book; through his son Isaac and grandsons Jacob and Esau and great grandsons, the 12 patriarchs of Israel, one of whom is Joseph who ends up in Egypt, where four hundred years later Moses is born to a family of Levites. There is NOTHING in all this that suggests anything other than real history.I see no other way to read this naturally, fairly, honestly, in keeping with the way it is written.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

its good to live the way christ teaches, but does this require that the bible be perfect to have meaning or does it need genesis to be scientificly viable to live as christ tought? i would hope people with strong faith would say no, it does not since it doesn't really matter how things were made in order to love god or be loved by god liberal? what do you mean liberal? i'm talking about augistine
and other people like him. intelligence is required when reading any text including the bible, anything other wise makes you look like an idiot and inturn makes your religion look idiotic i think he would be appalled at the way creationism reads the bible, and i doubt he would agree there was a huge global flood or hyper-evolution or "kinds"
T.O. has a good thing on this CH102: Literalismheres a good site i found that has a few quotes that alone show that the top fathers of the church did not agree with each other
What the Early Church Believed: Creation and Genesis | Catholic Answers good quote from augustine, as i have asked many people this same question, why does genesis need to be fact to be useful for salvation

DG, you seem to bend over backwards NOT to get what's plainly there. The New Testament writers claim it was about Jesus, not I. I see no reason to doubt them. But oh well, I don't expect to convince you.You believe the Jewish view, and that's an endless argument. I believe the Christian view. The Talmud is human traditions, not from God. Much of it is what Jesus condemned as the Pharisees' adding to scripture. Of course I do: the New Testament writers interpret it that way. That's evidence. Then they are right and CHristians are wrong. But what if Christians are right and they are wrong? Paul knew all there was to know about the Jews, being a Pharisee of the highest rank. I've spent the last three years in intense email conversations and debate with a very committed orthodox Jew I met at a Torah site, who quotes tons of stuff at me. And I knew a lot before that. This isn't about knowledge, face it. There's such a thing as a different point of view you know. Yes, he was a prophet. He was also the Son of God. When others called him that he didn't refuse the title. Yes it does. They didn't have to know it did, God is the one who inspired it all through His devoted servants. Certainly Abraham and Moses and David had a pretty clear idea about the Messiah in their prophetic words. David's psalms clearly change voice at some points, into the future time of the Messiah. The prophets didn't know all the ramifications and implications of their own prophecies they faithfully conveyed from their encounters with God, though they may have had inklings. Nothing odd about that if you believe that God is God and this is God's book and the prophets His instruments.But Jesus Himself says it:

quote:

---

Luk 24:25-27 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

​

Jhn 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

---

Jesus says what I quoted above. Even if he wrote it down himself you'd find a way to doubt that it came from him. Face it.

Like the talking snake, for example? Does that "read naturally" like history? Can you recommend some other history books that mention talking snakes?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I like Augustine a lot, but he wasn't right about everything.

If you know it was written by God and you have the barest idea of who God is, you don't compare his work to fairy tales, you tremble and learn that snakes and donkeys talk if God wants them to.

i don't think its metaphor, but i don't think its true eather, the authors believed this, believing then doesn't make it stupid, believing it now.. it seems a bit stupid considering how much we know in comparison to them about the earth.
why wouldn't they put anything in about that? because they wanted control? didn't know? who knows really? i'll give you a hint, go learn about the different writers theory, one of them is the editors, who put the book together in a coherent book. by the way genesis one and two are not straight forward at all, the hebrew language doesn't have linebreaks. so genesis one ends hmm on genesis 2:4 i think? its to tie the stories togather but they are two different versions of the same idea
i've read plenty of stories that read like they are real, such as the irish, they have a mythical line of kings dating back to pre-history, but no one believes it because theres no proof of it, this is the same thing. i could make up a fake history if i wanted to. but the problem is other than the bible there is nothing to show this is true, infact genetics have already shown much that the jews never left israel and are related to the people around them. i agree with you for the most part, but the bible doesn't have anything to show outside of it that its historical. if we had sources to show that the patriarchs existed outside of the bible we might be more willing to accept it, but theres no evidence.
the fact remains that this is what people believed a long time ago, this doesn't mean its true, anymore than lilith comes out at night and steals babies