The Bible: literal or metaphorical?

[Too Few Lions]

Quoting Paul to prove Paul is not very good evidence (circular) at all and sloppy scholarship.

I couldn't agree more. Whoever Paul was, he does appear to have been quite happy to tell porkies. Neither his letters nor the Book of Acts are an objective reliable historical source, both have a clear agenda.

Bruce, your points fail; some miserably - stretching - to make a point or meaning and others not so bad, but fail nonetheless. Your congregation may lap this stuff up, but it doesn't work here. Hence the title of the thread should read:

The Bible: credible or fictional?

I think this thread has been somewhat derailed into a monologue on Paul. I've yet to see any replies from any Christians to the original question - which parts of the Bible do they read literally as representing some form of historical truth, and which do they read metaphorically as mythology.

[Attila]

Quoting Paul to prove Paul is not very good evidence (circular) at all and sloppy scholarship.

I couldn't agree more. Whoever Paul was, he does appear to have been quite happy to tell porkies. Neither his letters nor the Book of Acts are an objective reliable historical source, both have a clear agenda.

Bruce, your points fail; some miserably - stretching - to make a point or meaning and others not so bad, but fail nonetheless. Your congregation may lap this stuff up, but it doesn't work here. Hence the title of the thread should read:

The Bible: credible or fictional?

I think this thread has been somewhat derailed into a monologue on Paul. I've yet to see any replies from any Christians to the original question - which parts of the Bible do they read literally as representing some form of historical truth, and which do they read metaphorically as mythology.

Is it time to dust off the dinosaur jokes?

[Gawen]

I think this thread has been somewhat derailed into a monologue on Paul. I've yet to see any replies from any Christians to the original question - which parts of the Bible do they read literally as representing some form of historical truth, and which do they read metaphorically as mythology.

I don't think it was a derail, TFL. I think Bruce is showing us the stuff he thinks is literal...perhaps most important?
The problem with that is when one narrows down the Bible to 14 points (and there could very well be more than 14) and most of those points are from Paul, it sure takes the steam out of the kettle.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I think this thread has been somewhat derailed into a monologue on Paul. I've yet to see any replies from any Christians to the original question - which parts of the Bible do they read literally as representing some form of historical truth, and which do they read metaphorically as mythology.

I don't think it was a derail, TFL. I think Bruce is showing us the stuff he thinks is literal...perhaps most important?
The problem with that is when one narrows down the Bible to 14 points (and there could very well be more than 14) and most of those points are from Paul, it sure takes the steam out of the kettle.

How many points does it take to establish an historical fact?  You are correct that I am focusing on a few points that I think that can be shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, to be historically, literally, true. I'm not quoting Paul to prove Paul, but I'm accustomed to people misinterpreting my intent.  It doesn't matter how much steam is in the kettle. When the best evidence available demonstrates that the essential facts about Jesus, as portrayed in the early Christian writings, are historical, that's all that is needed to justify the faith.

I think I'll just leave it at that.  Once you get past I Corinthians 15, the rest is not as important.  So, we have I Corinthians 15, which includes an eyewitness account of the resurrection and several other references to that event, as well as a contemporary's statement that Jesus died and was buried.  What is your documentary, historical evidence from contemporary sources that these events did not happen? 

[Stevil]

I think I'll just leave it at that.  Once you get past I Corinthians 15, the rest is not as important.  So, we have I Corinthians 15, which includes an eyewitness account of the resurrection and several other references to that event, as well as a contemporary's statement that Jesus died and was buried.  What is your documentary, historical evidence from contemporary sources that these events did not happen? 

I resurrected my grandmother once. She had died without saying goodbye, so I resurrected her so that I could tell her that I loved her and will miss her, then I let her go back to being dead.
No-one has any historical evidence that this event did not happen, which is understandable because it did actually happen.

[Gawen]

Bruce,

If scholars have to take interpolation or redaction theories seriously based only on internal evidence, the result should be a state of uncertainty and diversity of scholarly opinion. In other words, scholars could not be sure whether questionable text or parts of it represent the views of the author or someone else. However, Christian scholars seem to have banded together to form a Magisterial Committee of Consensus scholarship; an apologetics based on a new or implied textus receptus. It is most disengenuous and lacking intellectual honesty.

Hardcore fundamentalist apologetic scholars have used the Byzantinian King James text for a long time. They do not back down from that dogmatic theology's alleged originality and integrity. Enter the recent Nestle-Aland/UBS text that is just as dogmatic in its so called Biblical Theology. The more dogmatic the apologetics, the more deep the reason for their seemingly pertinacious unwillingness to seriously consider the possibility of interpolations. Indeed, why even consider it at all? Their reasoning is, short of definitive manuscript evidence, there is no suggestion of an interpolation in I Cor 15: 3-11. This is like saying "My car makes a funny noise, but if it ain't broke, I ain't looking into it"

So the issue dissolves itself into canon polemics. Apologetic scholars are horrified to think that if the integrity of a "canonical" text proves diffident, the text (in whole or in part) may slide from that of "acknowledged" texts to the "disputed" and then the "spurious" category (not unlike the long ending of Mark). It is difficult to extract oneself from a textual morass, therefore, apologetical so called scholarly strategy is to disallow any argument that cannot fully prove the secondary character of a piece of text. Mere probability results in the dreaded "If it ain't broke" attitude, so mere probabilities are to be shunned. If they cannot prove the text secondary, they are entitled to continue regarding it as certain – authentic. In other words, the text is innocent until proven guilty". But they never look into its guiltiness...God forbid.

Ok, Bruce. Regardless of how you get to it, I think I have just rendered your view of I Cor. 15 correctly. There are, however, discrepancies within.
It cannot be harmonized with Gal. 1:1, 11-12. In Galatians Paul says that what he preached to his readers when he founded their church was not taught him by human predecessors. In 1 Cor 15 he tells his readers that what he preached to them when he founded their church was taught him by human predecessors. What we see in 1 Corinthians is the same as that in Acts, the very version of his call and apostolate he sought to refute with an oath before God in Gal 1:20.

And that is just the beginning. Do your homework and you will find there's much more wrong with I Cor. 15. It is simply not as succinct as you wish it to be.

[Too Few Lions]

I think I'll just leave it at that.  Once you get past I Corinthians 15, the rest is not as important.  So, we have I Corinthians 15, which includes an eyewitness account of the resurrection and several other references to that event, as well as a contemporary's statement that Jesus died and was buried.  What is your documentary, historical evidence from contemporary sources that these events did not happen?  

I resurrected my grandmother once. She had died without saying goodbye, so I resurrected her so that I could tell her that I loved her and will miss her, then I let her go back to being dead.
No-one has any historical evidence that this event did not happen, which is understandable because it did actually happen.

that's good enough for me Stevil. You've written it therefore it must be true! You are my saviour and the Son of God, I prostrate myself before you and will live my life however you tell me to. Although technically you should have been writing about someone else's grandma who died and was resurrected decades ago and who you never met!

The trouble is Paul never met Jesus (if he ever existed, which I'm skeptical of). He was also writing decades after any such event, and he was prone to self-aggrandisement and making things up.

Personally I'm also skeptical of when Paul's letters were actually written. The earliest known copies date to the late second / early third centuries, and they're not mentioned by Justin Martyr in the mid first century. They're mentioned in 1 Clement, but the earliest known copy of that itself dates to the fifth century!

Like most Christian works, ity seems to me that the letters of Paul are dated to the mid first century because they claim to be from that period, not because we actually have any hard evidence to prove that they're from that date. Given how rife pseudepigraphy, forgery and rewriting / making up history was in early Christianity, I think one should be a little skeptical over dating Paul's letters to the mid-first century until hard evidence is found to support that claim. That's not to say that some parts of them aren't that old, just that we have no hard evidence to know for sure that they are.

[Gawen]

The one thing missing from 1 Corinthians 15 and any other creed in Paul's letters is any claim that a corpse rose and walked the earth. All Jesus does is 'appear'

We know that Christians claim Jesus 'appears' on nachos, tortillas and slices of toast.

Claiming Jesus 'appeared' means absolutely nothing. There are no details. It is all as vague as Paul's claim to have visited Heaven.

What we can know is that early Christians were never told of corpses rising and eating fish because the Christian converts that Paul was writing to were scoffing at the whole idea of their god choosing to raise corpses.

Converts do not scoff at what converted them...


*Edited to add* I had thought to start a new thread just on I Cor. 15: 3-12 (or so). I have enough material to bash it rather thoroughly and have enough questions to stymie even the great apologist Habermas. The problem is, including the apologies along with debunking material would take more than 25 pages...*laffin*. Although I have the time, I fear the trouble to collate it and the probability that certain individuals would not read it makes it not worth the attempt.

Suffice it to say that I Cor. 15 3-12 is quite possibly an interpolation. The evidence suggest that much.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Regardless of how you get to it, I think I have just rendered your view of I Cor. 15 correctly. There are, however, discrepancies within.
It cannot be harmonized with Gal. 1:1, 11-12. In Galatians Paul says that what he preached to his readers when he founded their church was not taught him by human predecessors. In 1 Cor 15 he tells his readers that what he preached to them when he founded their church was taught him by human predecessors. What we see in 1 Corinthians is the same as that in Acts, the very version of his call and apostolate he sought to refute with an oath before God in Gal 1:20.

Where does I Cor. 15 say that he received the gospel by human predecessors?  It just says that it was "received" (v. 3).  That could mean from human predecessors, or it could mean directly from the Lord through revelation, as in I Cor. 11:23.  There could be parts of it received from revelation (such vv. 3-4) and parts from human predecessors (vv. 5-7), and parts from personal experience (v. . The text deserves the benefit of the doubt.

[Sandra Craft]

How many points does it take to establish an historical fact? 

I don't think points, or the number of them, is the issue.  The issue I see is impartial verification -- some source other than the bible, or Xtian writings which can be expected to support it, is needed. 

I'll admit I haven't been following this thread that closely so if you've presented non-biblical, non-Xtian, verification of bible stories then you have indeed got a start on establishing a historical fact; otherwise, all you've got is a circular arguement, which is completely worthless.  Bear in mind I'm not saying your claims aren't true, just that you've presented no proof and there's no reason for us to consider them true until you do.

[DeterminedJuliet]

How many points does it take to establish an historical fact? 

I don't think points, or the number of them, is the issue.  The issue I see is impartial verification -- some source other than the bible, or Xtian writings which can be expected to support it, is needed. 

This! When I was doing my undergrad, and writing a history paper, I absolutely needed primary and secondary sources - For a 20 page paper, I'd need at least 5-10 primary sources and 10-15 secondary sources. Each of these sources would need to be considered "academic" and half-way respectable. If there were any inconsistencies between my thesis and the primary themes/arguments in my sources, I'd have to explain the inconsistencies and defend why they were still valuable resources.

The Bible would be considered one source, and definitely a secondary source when it comes to an actual argument for the existence of God.

From what I've seen, most arguments for an Abrahamic God wouldn't pass an undergraduate level history classroom. I would think the burden of proof should be much, much higher for determining your entire life and worldview. 

[Tank]

How many points does it take to establish an historical fact? 

I don't think points, or the number of them, is the issue.  The issue I see is impartial verification -- some source other than the bible, or Xtian writings which can be expected to support it, is needed. 

This! When I was doing my undergrad, and writing a history paper, I absolutely needed primary and secondary sources - For a 20 page paper, I'd need at least 5-10 primary sources and 10-15 secondary sources. Each of these sources would need to be considered "academic" and half-way respectable. If there were any inconsistencies between my thesis and the primary themes/arguments in my sources, I'd have to explain the inconsistencies and defend why they were still valuable resources.

The Bible would be considered one source, and definitely a secondary source when it comes to an actual argument for the existence of God.

From what I've seen, most arguments for an Abrahamic God wouldn't pass an undergraduate level history classroom. I would think the burden of proof should be much, much higher for determining your entire life and worldview. 

Bloody well said!

[Gawen]

This!

From what I've seen, most arguments for an Abrahamic God wouldn't pass an undergraduate level history classroom. I would think the burden of proof should be much, much higher for determining your entire life and worldview. 

1+1+1=3 all of us say because it's logical.
1+1+1=1 others equally say because they feel it in their heart.

Faith. The harbinger of theological idiocy.

[Gawen]

Where does I Cor. 15 say that he received the gospel by human predecessors?  It just says that it was "received" (v. 3).  That could mean from human predecessors, or it could mean directly from the Lord through revelation, as in I Cor. 11:23.  There could be parts of it received from revelation (such vv. 3-4) and parts from human predecessors (vv. 5-7), and parts from personal experience (v. .

It could mean
He over heard it.
He read it or had it read to him.
Made it up.
Heard a part and made up the rest.
Heard a part or whole and changed it to suit his needs.
His Epilepsy got the worst of him.

It could be any number of things.

The text deserves the benefit of the doubt.

And when one is left with "It could be any number of things", the text deserves the benefit of the rubbish bin.

[iSok]

Where do you people get the energy from arguing on religion over and over and over and over and over.......
Leaving religion should save you some time, you only get to live once. But it seems some people are obsessed with it...

The amount of time wasted here could be used for family/hobby's/education and so on....



Maybe I'm just trolling....