Mysteries of the Bible

[MrFun]

Jesus Christ's ressurection is meant as a symbolic story that has important application to people's actual lives.

[Monk]

MISTER Fun,

can you elaborate on that claim? I'm wondering how you reach your conclusions regarding what the authors of the Bible really "meant" when they wrote it.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Monk
MISTER Fun,

can you elaborate on that claim? I'm wondering how you reach your conclusions regarding what the authors of the Bible really "meant" when they wrote it.

I do not know the truth that underlies the Bible -- no one does. Not even the Pope -- he knows as much about the Bible as the average person does, IMO.

All I can hope to do, is read as much as I can from the Bible this summer, and try to think about the different messages, and get as close as to what I think the truth is.


But here is my belief regarding Jesus Christ's death. His ascendant into Heaven did not mean that he went into a spiritual realm that is separate from earth.

Rather, it meant that all of his followers and the people who were part of his life received part of his spirit and soul after his death. To this day, those who make a serious, faithful effort in trying to follow his teachings, have the potential to receive a small part of his soul and spirit.

[SlowwHand]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/743539.asp?pne=msn&cp1=1#BODY

Big bang?



"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1

[Monk]

I think the authors wanted to portray the life, death and resurrection of Jesus as historical facts in the same way the death of Socrates and Alexander's conquest of Persia were concrete, historical facts. That's why contemporary people are included. This symbolic interpretation of yours is a relatively new theory, if I got my facts right.

[SlowwHand]

It's SteFu, not SteBu.

[MrFun]

It's not a new theory advanced by anyone --- it's my conclusion on what I believe is closer to the truth after a few years of periodic relfection, reading, and discussion.

I'm still at the point of life though, where I am in the midst of developing all of my beliefs. In fact, it's a journey that does not end.

[Monk]

It's not a new theory advanced by anyone

Well, I'm just talking about the difference between the literal and the symbolic interpretation of the Bible. Your symbolic interpretation would resemble that of most Christians today as well as Søren Kierkegaard and the Christian part of the existentialist wave in the fifties.

[Monk]

Of course it's "Stebu". Even if he prefers to be called "Tatu of Finland".

[Dry]

Originally posted by Hueij
The Bible is either the word of God or it isn't. If you think it is you have to take it literally, if you think it isn't you just pick out the wisdom stuff (after all, Western civilization is, or should be, ingrained with it) and choose a religion (or no religion) of your choice...

And with this bit of wisdom I pray you all goodnight...

I remember that when I was young some adults were trying to illustrate the addition operator by some examples:
1 apple + 2 apples = 3 apples.
Do you think those adults were so stupid that they didn't know also that 1+2=3?
Why is litteral reading exclusiv to general reading?
If (!!!) God exists, and if (!!!) he wrote the bible, why would he has been so unwise to exclude the general, symbolic reading of the bible?

If you read only litteraly (1st commandment: only apples may be added!), you will never be able to understand the general case (Holy $#!t, some explorer has found a new fruit: banana. How are we going to add it?).

Smart children don't need the apple support to understand the addition, some others, less gifted, need it.

[Adalbertus]

MrFun, the Monk, I don't know how aware you are about this. The death of Jesus is portrayed as testifiable by historic persons. As main witness there seems to be the Roman Centurio (or whatever he was) who supervised the crucification. For the resurrection there is quite clearly no witness outside the Christian community. And I think it doesn't matter. Someone who doesn't believe in Christ doesn't need to know if the resurrection was a historical fact. If you believe - why should God not be able to rise from the dead?

So you are saying the Bible is obsolete. Isn't about time that Jehovah did a second edition?

As I already said, you have to look at each part indiviually if it became obsolete. Same with Newton's physics. His theory of light became obsolete quite fast without making the rest obsolete.
Why should God take away the pleasure we have doing physics by revealing everything we can grasp now? So far about the first chapters of Genesis. For the more theological part, there is a second edition, called New Testament, and apart of some sociological statements of St. Paul, it didn't become really obsolete. Rather it was never really applied.

If the Bible is not perfect what makes it special in comparison to any other relgious writings?

The Bible is far better than any other religious writing I know. And - especially the teaching of Jesus Christ is the best thing to an individual's psychical health I've heard of (I don't mean in its abuse). The only drawback is that you cannot build a state on it. And I doubt it will ever be possible to reconcile this.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Adalbertus
MrFun, the Monk, I don't know how aware you are about this. The death of Jesus is portrayed as testifiable by historic persons. As main witness there seems to be the Roman Centurio (or whatever he was) who supervised the crucification. For the resurrection there is quite clearly no witness outside the Christian community. And I think it doesn't matter. Someone who doesn't believe in Christ doesn't need to know if the resurrection was a historical fact. If you believe - why should God not be able to rise from the dead?

Um, Adal --- I never had any doubt that Jesus Christ was crucified on a cross and then became a martyr.

What I doubt is his literal ressurection and asendant to heaven. But I do not believe in the heaven and hell realms.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Adalbertus
MrFun, the Monk, I don't know how aware you are about this. The death of Jesus is portrayed as testifiable by historic persons. As main witness there seems to be the Roman Centurio (or whatever he was) who supervised the crucification.

Would you care to show where this can be seen outside the Bible? There is no such source. We only have John's gospel to support this. Even the other gospels don't have that specific claim. Of course if he was crucified there had to be Romans present but there is no record of it except in the Bible.

For the resurrection there is quite clearly no witness outside the Christian community. And I think it doesn't matter. Someone who doesn't believe in Christ doesn't need to know if the resurrection was a historical fact. If you believe - why should God not be able to rise from the dead?

If he didn't actually die there was no resurrection. People have been known to apear quite dead without actually being so.

[Boris Godunov]

If the Bible is the literal word of God, then God is a liar. No two ways about it. It has been shown--overwhelmingly--by historians, anthropologists, archaelogists, etc. that many of the events described of the OT (The Flood, most of Genesis, etc.) did not happen, at least not as the Bible relates them.

For instance, the Flood--while it may have a factual basis in a great deluge of the Black Sea basin (several other cultures, like the Sumerians in the Epic of Gilgamesh, give very similar flood accounts), it is undeniable that no, the flood didn't destroy the whole world except 8 people on the Ark. Numerous civilizations existed happily right through the time of the flood and didn't seem to notice it (China, Egypt, India, etc.).

Beyond that, there is the massive anthropological evidence collected Genesis and creation is a bunch of hooey.

The Bible is interesting myth--but that's all it is. There is little to distinguish the OT in maturity or reason from the ancient myths of China, India, Greece, Egypt, etc.

Does any of this mean there is no God? Of course not, it is impossible to disprove God. But shows that what is contained in the Bible is merely just one of many attempts by man to do the impossible, and that is reduce and belittle God into a concept we can understand. This is a fictional God, utterly human in form and creation. He is at times petty and callous (Job), vengeful and mean, loving and child-like, and alarmingly prone to contradiction, fickleness and irrational behavior. Yup, that's a human alright...

[Boris Godunov]

The Bible is far better than any other religious writing I know. And - especially the teaching of Jesus Christ is the best thing to an individual's psychical health I've heard of (I don't mean in its abuse).

Try reading Buddhism. Far superior than Christian doctrine in promoting psychic well-being and mental health. When you remove the guilt-inducing bogies of Heaven and Hell, you'd be amazed at how the mind can focus on what is real.