glyn

[quote=tomspug;475915]My apologies for misunderstanding you. However, your original post comes off as very judgmental and unsourced.

Just as your original 'observation' came out as bumptious. Advice to newbies is to read the threads. You prefer not to take that advice? Up to you, but it might prevent you from leading with your chin.


This one is the first that raises flags. How in the world were three biblical figures crucified in one day and yet it is not mentioned in the Bible.

Todays bible came about because of the meeting with the Roman Emperor Constantine in Nicea. (Yes, I know he made himself Pope and set up a new capital in Turkey that was named after him, but he was not a christian!) They decided what should be in and what should be omitted. Not everyone agreed, especially the gnostic sects. (these were to become 'heretics', be punished and have the texts they followed, destroyed). Some texts survived almost intact, others are only known from fragments or from references to them. The bible is not historically accurate. Don't expect it to tell you everything that happened.

If this is so, what was the reason for their crucifixion? Why does Tacitus or Josephus make no mention in them (they are the most reliable ancient historians of that time period and only mention Jesus in the crucifixion). Where is your source on this claim?

So that we approach this on more even terms, first read the books I recommended in the threads. The most important is 'Jesus the Man' by Dr Barbara Thiering. Once you have done this we can proceed further if you're still inclined.

__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

Herodotus

I would also recommend reading the Gnostic texts I have linked to, and some of John Spong's works which can be found on his website that I also linked to. Here is also an interesting article by Chole Breyer, an Episcopial priest and the daughter of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer:

What if Mary wasn't a virgin? - By Chloe Breyer - Slate Magazine

There were plenty of doubters in the what came to be known as Biblical stories even at Jesus's time. I don't think the Bible was meant to be taken literally; it is not inerrant In fact it even says it is "inspired" by God, but not the literal word of God. At least that is my theological take on it. As for historical accuracy; it never claims to be accurate history either. So what's the controversy?

JAD_333

[quote=glyn;475826]Let's not rush things. You are right, but I expect it will happen at a nice comfortable pace. There is a blessing in it, however. It will be easier to forget things we don't want to remember.

Speaking of brains, did you by chance watch the video? I absolutely flipped over it, but I realize its impact will depend on how intensely the viewer has pursued certain ageless questions.

__________________
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education. (Plato)

JAD_333

You would be right if you meant it was designed to be taken according to your state of being. The stories apart from being stories invariably have a moral to them and taken all together they point toward a goal. The lowest state is literal--intellectually stimulating--for the average person. You purposely write in a way that draws in the literal person. But you also design the story so it will instruct him as his state of being develops. It's a common religious mode of teaching; you relate a factual event so as to convey a moral and then give credit for the event to a supernatural power so that the moral is indisputable. BTW, I am not saying it's trickery; biblical writers were teachers who had something they wanted to convey to people in the present and the future.


Literal people musing.

glyn

.

Triple C

Well, didn't the question of Marian chastity rest solely on the interpretation of "maiden" in Hebrew?*

It is the case that the tradition in Christian theology does not truly embrace a foundamentalist** faith. The idea is that the spirital truths of the Bible is not,f rom a reading of its letters, readily transparent or self-evident; a certain divine illumination is required for the proper understanding of God's signs. The fable of the mustard seeds and Paul's metaphor of the looking glass come into mind. What seems to be the lesson is that, the letter of the Bible is not meant to be read literally, though the inaccessibility of the message is not to any fault of the text but the imperfection of human faculties.

It does seem to be the case that the justified souls could instantly understand the Bible because their minds had been perfected by God, according to what I read of the Christian theologians.

Edit:
* Marian Chastity is asserted because the belief that the OT presaged the coming of Christ, and that in the OT, the messiah would be concieved by a "maiden of Israel" (at least that's what my ossified-before-its-age mind remebers).
** I mean taking a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible here.

__________________
What benefits the body is called medicine; what benefits the soul, discipline.
-Augustine of Hippo