# Yeah, but we already knew that



## Terminal Idiot (Aug 27, 2017)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...iterally-says-scholar-brought-light-earliest/


----------



## bullethead (Aug 27, 2017)

People have taken the bible from what it was to what they wanted and what they needed it to be.

It is ancient historical fiction about the birth of a culture.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 28, 2017)

> The find adds weight to the idea that many early biblical scholars did not see the Bible as a history, but instead a series of coded messages which represented key elements of Christianity, he said.
> 
> "There's been an assumption that it's a literal record of truth - a lot of the early scholars got very worried about inconsistencies between Matthew and Luke, for example.
> 
> "But for people teaching the Bible in the fourth century, it's not the literal meaning which is important, it's how it's read allegorically.



Complete and utter nonsense.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 28, 2017)

centerpin fan said:


> Complete and utter nonsense.



I'm not trying to say you're wrong - but what exactly are you saying is complete and utter nonsense about that?


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 28, 2017)

TripleXBullies said:


> I'm not trying to say you're wrong - but what exactly are you saying is complete and utter nonsense about that?



The part I highlighted in blue.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 28, 2017)

Eleven people reading this.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 28, 2017)

The Jews were always looking for something or someone new to worship. If Jesus was the son of god he certainly did not want a new religion to worship him. He wanted people to follow the Torah. He wasn't out to destroy the Old Testament.
After his death some authors wrote of yet another man, in the long line of writings about other men both before and after, that they thought fulfulled ancient prophesy. The 4th century "church" rounded up and destroyed or archived every writing they could get their hands on that did not corroborate the religious stories that they wanted told. Massaging was done to steer what writings were left to fit the agenda. There is a reason why the trail stops in the 4th century.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 28, 2017)

centerpin fan said:


> Complete and utter nonsense.



I was thinking the same thing. A single manuscript a church tradition does not make. I don't believe for a second that the early church or the ancient jews took these stories as anything but literal and historical.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 28, 2017)

centerpin fan said:


> The part I highlighted in blue.



I am not color blind. I can see that. What about it is nonsense?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 28, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> I was thinking the same thing. A single manuscript a church tradition does not make. I don't believe for a second that the early church or the ancient jews took these stories as anything but literal and historical.


I'm no so sure they did.
Many of the ancient Jews were worshiping many different  gods and multiple gods too.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 28, 2017)

centerpin fan said:


> Complete and utter nonsense.



This quote supports your statement pretty well.


> What Houghton thinks is really interesting about the text is that Fortunatianus isn’t discounting literal interpretations of the Bible, he’s just focusing on allegorical interpretations instead.


This one makes a lot more sense than the one you highlighted.


> Fortunatianus’ text illuminates the variety of ways that early Christians interpreted the Bible.


This paragraph makes it sound like nothing has changed in 1750 years.  There are always a few of these around.


> For example, in a passage where Jesus enters a village, Houghton says Fortunatianus might write that the “village stands for the church,” meaning that lessons about the church can be drawn from the story. Fortunatianus also writes that the number 12 is always “a reference to the disciples,” and that the number five “is always a reference to the books of the Jewish law.”




[I can't get the link to work — google "hugh Houghton history.com" and it should be in the first 5 or 6 hits]


I read about a half dozen other articles early this morning and got a much wider view.
This was the only one I remembered how to find quickly.  It’s not a subject of high interest to me, but I thought these quotes might interest  others.  Who knows, somebody might even read more.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 28, 2017)

TripleXBullies said:


> I am not color blind. I can see that. What about it is nonsense?



Sorry.  I misunderstood.

I think it's nonsense that the 4th century church had drifted so far that allegory trumped the literal meaning of the text.  I agree with AH:



atlashunter said:


> I don't believe for a second that the early church or the ancient jews took these stories as anything but literal and historical.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 28, 2017)

Ok, I get it. You believe that it's nonsense that the early church believed it was anything short of history.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Aug 28, 2017)

centerpin fan said:


> The part I highlighted in blue.



So it's nonsense that we should not take the bible literally?  Or nonsense that we should take it literally?


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 28, 2017)

TripleXBullies said:


> Ok, I get it. You believe that it's nonsense that the early church believed it was anything short of history.



Yes.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 28, 2017)

oldfella1962 said:


> So it's nonsense that we should not take the bible literally?  Or nonsense that we should take it literally?



See post 15.


----------



## jmharris23 (Aug 28, 2017)

If the Bible isn't true then there is no reason to take it literally or allegorically . If it isn't true it's a waste of time and energy to even interact with it at all.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 28, 2017)

jmharris23 said:


> If the Bible isn't true then there is no reason to take it literally or allegorically . If it isn't true it's a waste of time and energy to even interact with it at all.



Awesome avatar pic. Time spent like in that pic is truth, reality, quality, and worth the time and energy.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 28, 2017)

jmharris23 said:


> If the Bible isn't true then there is no reason to take it literally or allegorically . If it isn't true it's a waste of time and energy to even interact with it at all.


So I'm curious....
If the Bible isnt "true", but a book of stories, lessons etc,
how would that effect your belief in God, if at all?


----------



## jmharris23 (Aug 28, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> So I'm curious....
> If the Bible isnt "true", but a book of stories, lessons etc,
> how would that effect your belief in God, if at all?



If I didn't believe it were true then I would be agnostic at best.


----------



## jmharris23 (Aug 28, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Awesome avatar pic. Time spent like in that pic is truth, reality, quality, and worth the time and energy.



Thank you and I don't disagree with any of that. I am a blessed man.


----------



## ky55 (Aug 28, 2017)

jmharris23 said:


> Thank you and I don't disagree with any of that. I am a blessed man.



Yes, you certainly are.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 28, 2017)

bullethead said:


> I'm no so sure they did.
> Many of the ancient Jews were worshiping many different  gods and multiple gods too.



The god of Abraham was one of a pantheon of Babylonian gods. It took time to transition from polytheism to monotheism.

Would you take a knife to your johnson over a story you believed was just allegory?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 28, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> The god of Abraham was one of a pantheon of Babylonian gods. It took time to transition from polytheism to monotheism.
> 
> Would you take a knife to your johnson over a story you believed was just allegory?



Lolol, no, but...
It is not like every Jew since Adam believed in and followed ONE god. (Plus we know Adam was not the start of the culture)And they were slicing and dicing before any written Torah. They borrowed it from the Egyptians and the practice is believed to be 15,000 years old. No history book needed for people to do WHACKy things.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 28, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Lolol, no, but...
> It is not like every Jew since Adam believed in and followed ONE god. (Plus we know Adam was not the start of the culture)And they were slicing and dicing before any written Torah. They borrowed it from the Egyptians and the practice is believed to be 15,000 years old. No history book needed for people to do WHACKy things.



Whatever they believed I think the point is it was taken as literally true, not as a story made up to teach a lesson like Aesop's fables.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 28, 2017)

jmharris23 said:


> If I didn't believe it were true then I would be agnostic at best.


So you completely tie the validity of the Bible and the existence of the Christian God together?
Reason I'm asking is because even after I rejected the Bible as being "true" I still wrestled for a long period of time with the question "if I reject the Bible how can I still believe in God"? I couldn't think of anything I "knew" and couldn't find anything out about God that didn't originate from it.


----------



## jmharris23 (Aug 28, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> So you completely tie the validity of the Bible and the existence of the Christian God together?
> Reason I'm asking is because even after I rejected the Bible as being "true" I still wrestled for a long period of time with the question "if I reject the Bible how can I still believe in God"? I couldn't think of anything I "knew" and couldn't find anything out about God that didn't originate from it.



Yes, that's right, I view them as completely tied together.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 28, 2017)

jmharris23 said:


> Yes, that's right, I view them as completely tied together.


Thanks.
That's where I ended up too but obviously with different results


----------



## jmharris23 (Aug 28, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Thanks.
> That's where I ended up too but obviously with different results



Yep....very different.  

Honestly though, I would rather someone dismiss it out of hand rather than twist it as some kind of "good" book full of moral niceties.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 28, 2017)

jmharris23 said:


> Yep....very different.
> 
> Honestly though, I would rather someone dismiss it out of hand rather than twist it as some kind of "good" book full of moral niceties.


That was actually an issue I thought about. It always bothered me that what I was being taught seemed to be the "nice" or "pretty picture" version of the Bible as opposed to the accurate version of the Bible.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 29, 2017)

jmharris23 said:


> Yep....very different.
> 
> Honestly though, I would rather someone dismiss it out of hand rather than twist it as some kind of "good" book full of moral niceties.



I agree. I don't think it fits that role very well anyway. Many apologists defend against moral attacks on the bible with divine command theory. Take out the divine commander and that opens up a lot of problems. I can pick some good parts out of it but I think there are better sources for that once it's rendered a secular good book.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 29, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Whatever they believed I think the point is it was taken as literally true, not as a story made up to teach a lesson like Aesop's fables.



I kinda sorta agree but I think all that belief took place after the Torah was being followed for a good while.
Before that there had to be a lot of Jews that were one generation after the slaves in Egypt that realized their parents before them were not slaves to Egypt and their grandparents were not slaves to Egypt so the Exodus was a fable.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 29, 2017)

jmharris23 said:


> Honestly though, I would rather someone dismiss it out of hand rather than twist it as some kind of "good" book full of moral niceties.





atlashunter said:


> I agree. I don't think it fits that role very well anyway.



I have kind of a morbid curiosity about the Christian Left.  I agree with them on almost nothing, but I do follow certain websites.  I mention them because they seem to never tire of stripping the Bible of any divine influence and promote the idea of the Bible as just a book with good moral principles.  These moral principles seem to be concentrated in Jesus' words (the "red letters".)  Paul and the OT don't get nearly the same respect.


----------

