The Bible: literal or metaphorical?

[Xjeepguy]

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....

This argument has gone on since religion was created, and I dont see it ever stopping. I think it is interesting to read though. It could be considered a hobby.....

[Too Few Lions]

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.

Spot on BCE, so far all of the points have come from the writings attributed to Paul, which never even claimed he had met a historical Jesus. And like the gospels and other New Testament books, we can't be entirely sure, when, where and by whom they were written. We don't have any external verification for Jesus' life, miracles, death or resurrection from archaeological or non-Christian sources, therefore we can't claim to be talking about 'historical facts'.

[Too Few Lions]

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....

this is a hobby (I've got others too!) and reading about religions in a comparative and objective way can be both educational and interesting.
If only religious people could treat their religion and belief in god as a hobby and nothing more the world would be a far better place.
I think also the same argument could be used against you and any other believers iSok, imagine all the time you've wasted in your life reading the Quran or other Sufi / Islamic texts or going to the mosque or praying to something that doesn't exist. You could have been doing far more interesting, worthwhile, fun and educational things!

[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....

this is a hobby (I've got others too!) and reading about religions in a comparative and objective way can be both educational and interesting.
If only religious people could treat their religion and belief in god as a hobby and nothing more the world would be a far better place.
I think also the same argument could be used against you and any other believers iSok, imagine all the time you've wasted in your life reading the Quran or other Sufi / Islamic texts or going to the mosque or praying to something that doesn't exist. You could have been doing far more interesting, worthwhile, fun and educational things!

That might be true, but I do believe in that and it makes me happy. Probably the most important and fulfilling aspect in my life.
I could not imagine that as being a waste of time.

I just find it so hard to understand how people can continue talking about not believing in the pink unicorn.
Surely there are better and more fun things to do!!! A 10 pages thread on whether to take the bible methaporical or literal is more for a Christian forum...

But don't mind me.....carry on. I'll cuddle my cute nephew now.

[Too Few Lions]

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....

this is a hobby (I've got others too!) and reading about religions in a comparative and objective way can be both educational and interesting.
If only religious people could treat their religion and belief in god as a hobby and nothing more the world would be a far better place.
I think also the same argument could be used against you and any other believers iSok, imagine all the time you've wasted in your life reading the Quran or other Sufi / Islamic texts or going to the mosque or praying to something that doesn't exist. You could have been doing far more interesting, worthwhile, fun and educational things!

That might be true, but I do believe in that and it makes me happy. Probably the most important and fulfilling aspect in my life.
I could not imagine that as being a waste of time.

I just find it so hard to understand how people can continue talking about not believing in the pink unicorn.
Surely there are better and more fun things to do!!! A 10 pages thread on whether to take the bible methaporical or literal is more for a Christian forum...

But don't mind me.....carry on. I'll cuddle my cute nephew now.

That's fair enough iSok, I'm glad your belief and your nephew make you happy, happiness is good. Personally, I quite enjoy debating these sorts of subjects! If you look back through the thread, quite a lot of it has been written by Christian members of the forum, which might help explain how it's managed to roll on for ten pages.

[Davin]

That might be true, but I do believe in that and it makes me happy. Probably the most important and fulfilling aspect in my life.
I could not imagine that as being a waste of time.

I just find it so hard to understand how people can continue talking about not believing in the pink unicorn.
Surely there are better and more fun things to do!!! A 10 pages thread on whether to take the bible methaporical or literal is more for a Christian forum...

But don't mind me.....carry on. I'll cuddle my cute nephew now.

Understand that questioning religion has been something punishible by death for many centuries. Questioning religion is important, if in the very least, it lets people know that other people disagree with it. Many religious people would like no one to ever question religion, especially in the past when infidels and blasphemers were put to death. I think we need to question religion if only to prevent going back to killing those that dare to question religion. So you cuddle your nephew and be happy doing so, I'll keep questioning religion to prevent another round of the dark ages or a world where revelation is held superior to discovery.

[DeterminedJuliet]

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....

this is a hobby (I've got others too!) and reading about religions in a comparative and objective way can be both educational and interesting.
If only religious people could treat their religion and belief in god as a hobby and nothing more the world would be a far better place.
I think also the same argument could be used against you and any other believers iSok, imagine all the time you've wasted in your life reading the Quran or other Sufi / Islamic texts or going to the mosque or praying to something that doesn't exist. You could have been doing far more interesting, worthwhile, fun and educational things!

That might be true, but I do believe in that and it makes me happy. Probably the most important and fulfilling aspect in my life.
I could not imagine that as being a waste of time.

I just find it so hard to understand how people can continue talking about not believing in the pink unicorn.
Surely there are better and more fun things to do!!! A 10 pages thread on whether to take the bible methaporical or literal is more for a Christian forum...

But don't mind me.....carry on. I'll cuddle my cute nephew now.

I usually don't get into nit-picking debates with theists about aspects of the bible - but when someone says "How many points does it take to establish an historical fact?" and they're pretty much ignoring the entire basis of historical study, well, I found that too hard to ignore If the Bible means something to you, that's fine. But don't think that every "point" from the bible counts as a different "point" from a historical perspective.

[Gawen]

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

It IS my hobby (amongst others) and an education.

Maybe I'm just trolling....

Maybe...

[Gawen]

I just find it so hard to understand how people can continue talking about not believing in the pink unicorn.

Because the invisible pink unicorn isn't running for president of the United States and IPU believers don't shove their *belief* down other peoples throats.

Surely there are better and more fun things to do!!! A 10 pages thread on whether to take the bible methaporical or literal is more for a Christian forum...

Says you. But this is the religion section of a discussion board. We're discussing it.

But don't mind me.....carry on. I'll cuddle my cute nephew now.

Great! and when I'm done here, I'll go polish the sear and hammer on one of my pistols (and possibly cut a round out of the hammer spring) to get a more smooth let off on the trigger. Then I'll get my planes ready to fly for this weekend.

[Gawen]

I usually don't get into nit-picking debates with theists about aspects of the bible - but when someone says "How many points does it take to establish an historical fact?" and they're pretty much ignoring the entire basis of historical study, well, I found that too hard to ignore If the Bible means something to you, that's fine. But don't think that every "point" from the bible counts as a different "point" from a historical perspective.

Alas, faire Juliet....O! she doth teach the torches to burn bright!

[Ecurb Noselrub]

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

Maybe nobody except you and me would be interested, but bring it on.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I usually don't get into nit-picking debates with theists about aspects of the bible - but when someone says "How many points does it take to establish an historical fact?" and they're pretty much ignoring the entire basis of historical study, well, I found that too hard to ignore If the Bible means something to you, that's fine. But don't think that every "point" from the bible counts as a different "point" from a historical perspective.

No one is ignoring the basis of historical study. I'm simply saying that the few passages that I have quoted from the writings of Paul are the best historical evidence that we have regarding the existence of the historical Jesus. They ARE history. They ARE evidence.  If Paul had knowledge of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, how many times does that have to be said to provide evidence of those events as historical fact?  I've pointed out the earliest references to Jesus, and I've asked for equally contemporary evidence that those references are wrong. So far, no one has offered anything.

If Gawen thinks that he can establish that the first part of I Cor. 15 is an interpolation, that would be something I would be interested in. 

[Gawen]

If Gawen thinks that he can establish that the first part of I Cor. 15 is an interpolation, that would be something I would be interested in. 

Interested, perhaps. But Bruce, even if I do put out possibly sufficient evidence to suggest it, I really do no think it will change your mind...overall. Would it?

Give me a day or so to go over everything, get it in a good Word document (a lot of my stuff is in bits and pieces) and post it here in a new thread.

[DeterminedJuliet]

I usually don't get into nit-picking debates with theists about aspects of the bible - but when someone says "How many points does it take to establish an historical fact?" and they're pretty much ignoring the entire basis of historical study, well, I found that too hard to ignore If the Bible means something to you, that's fine. But don't think that every "point" from the bible counts as a different "point" from a historical perspective.

No one is ignoring the basis of historical study. I'm simply saying that the few passages that I have quoted from the writings of Paul are the best historical evidence that we have regarding the existence of the historical Jesus. They ARE history. They ARE evidence.  If Paul had knowledge of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, how many times does that have to be said to provide evidence of those events as historical fact?  I've pointed out the earliest references to Jesus, and I've asked for equally contemporary evidence that those references are wrong. So far, no one has offered anything.

They are (arguably) evidence for a historical Jesus, but my point is that it's not sufficient to make any kind of real "historical" claim. They are still  secondary sources. And, I'd still argue, that they only really count as one source. Anne Frank's diary may be a really compelling piece of writing that was created over the span of years and sheds light on the holocaust, but you can't write a piece of respectable history on that time frame and use it as your only reference. You need context, you need collaborating first hand accounts, you need pictures. That's good history.  

I realize that the early A.D's is a harder time frame to come up with that kind of evidence, but I'm afraid those are just the limitations of the time. That doesn't make scarce history good history.

Really, my only issue is that you were calling for this to be considered historical "fact". My point was, to consider something "fact" in history, you need a TON of evidence and support. Most times, even then, it's debatable.

And beyond that, like I said before, even if they un-earthed Jesus' authenticated sandals tomorrow, that still says nothing about his actual holiness.  And using history won't help support that claim - even if you find a million accounts of a million people from a thousand years ago saying that Jesus is the son of god, that's not a confirmation from a historical perspective that it's true in the slightest. It's just a historical confirmation that many people, at that time, believed it to be true.

[Too Few Lions]

No one is ignoring the basis of historical study. I'm simply saying that the few passages that I have quoted from the writings of Paul are the best historical evidence that we have regarding the existence of the historical Jesus. They ARE history. They ARE evidence.  If Paul had knowledge of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, how many times does that have to be said to provide evidence of those events as historical fact?  I've pointed out the earliest references to Jesus, and I've asked for equally contemporary evidence that those references are wrong. So far, no one has offered anything.

But as we've pointed out, if this is the best evidence you have it's pathetic, and one can't make any claims of 'historical facts' from it. It's written by someone who never met Jesus, traditionally dated to the mid first century CE, but not necessarily that old. Those letters could have been written a hundred years or more later than that date, the earliest known copies are dated to the late second / early third centuries, but they're not even empirically dated. If we want empirical dating, it's the fourth century! If you want to talk about 'historical fact' I want to see empirical evidence, not hearsay written by one person who we can't even historically identify.

Personally I have a problem with the sheer fact that Jesus never wrote anything. Why? If he existed he was clearly well read and literate, his theology and philosophy borrows heavily from Greek philosophy and he quotes the Septaguint. It seems odd that the earliest Christian writings are from Paul, who never met Jesus, and wasn't one of his twelve (mythological number, representing the signs of the zodiac) apostles.

But even if one day we find some archaeological evidence that Jesus existed (or even that a first century Church existed, we currently don't even have any empirical evidence for that), that still doesn't mean that any of the miracles and resurrection stories are true and anything other than myths.

I do think that if the true son of the true god had walked upon the earth, that god could have done a better job of providing some concrete evidence for this! The first century was a time that's fairly well recorded, there were plenty of Greek and Roman writers around at the time, and lots of archaeology from the period. Paradoxically, the one thing that limits our knowledge from that period (and antiquity in general) is the destruction wrought by the Christians in the 4th, 5th and 6th centuries in their attempt to obliterate all traces of 'pagan' civilization.

If you're going to claim the miraculous stories of your religion are any more than myths you're going to have to provide a lot more evidence than a few passages from the letters of Paul.