Should we take the Bible literally or figuratively!
The best answer I can give is to take a quote from my book "The Plain Truth About God-101" (what the church doesn't want you to know!)
**At the end of the first century C.E. The “Alexandrian School of Thought,” of which Origin and Clement of Alexandria were part, taught that there were three possible approaches to be taken to the scriptures. (That there were already discussions of this magnitude and significance tells us a lot of the early Christian movement.)
The first approach was the literal translation, the second was symbolic, or allegorical, and the third was spiritual.
The first (the literal) was described as simplistic and solely for the un-educated. The second (symbolic) was the use of parables to convey a deeper meaning, and third (spiritual) was to transcend the mortal plane and bring us closer to God.
Unfortunately at that time, as now, the un-washed masses cried out for a ready-made, simplistic, popular faith. A faith that can best be described as closer to a romance novel than any serious attempt at theology, history and philosophy.
This is also the reason that the "Resurrection" was proclaimed as the basis for Christianity.
(It was a con thought up from ancient Greek mythology by Paul. He's the one responsible for the Christianity we have today. Not Jesus!)
This version of the "Faith," when combined with the Roman gift of organization and brute force, led to the "Christianity" that has been handed down to us.
It seems to be the consensus among New Testament scholars that "Jesus” preached a message that teaches a way of behaving and living that applied to a first century reality.
However, the words of "Christ" are another matter.
If the sayings and parables of "Christ" are examined closely with the purpose of separating those words that were actually uttered by “Jesus” from those that were later attributed to him, we see a vast difference in the context, meaning, and purpose between the two.
The sayings of “Christ” display a metaphorical and allegorical context that suggest someone slightly removed from the everyday world.
The biblical words of "Jesus," however, were indeed a direct reflection of their place and time. (Just as today, we are all products of our own time and age)
The actual sayings of the historical "Jesus,” which upon close examination shows only a handful of thoughts and parables, are so simple and basic, with such underlying truth, that they can be applied to the human condition of any age. -A.W.J.
Please, Please pay attention to this> It is probably the closest you will ever get to the truth behind Jesus and the whole religious thing.
Don't blindly accept what other people try and tell you, go and find out for youself.
"Faith" can very well turn out to be a false God!
Your Humble Scribe;
Allan W Janssen
**At the end of the first century C.E. The “Alexandrian School of Thought,” of which Origin and Clement of Alexandria were part, taught that there were three possible approaches to be taken to the scriptures. (That there were already discussions of this magnitude and significance tells us a lot of the early Christian movement.)
The first approach was the literal translation, the second was symbolic, or allegorical, and the third was spiritual.
The first (the literal) was described as simplistic and solely for the un-educated. The second (symbolic) was the use of parables to convey a deeper meaning, and third (spiritual) was to transcend the mortal plane and bring us closer to God.
Unfortunately at that time, as now, the un-washed masses cried out for a ready-made, simplistic, popular faith. A faith that can best be described as closer to a romance novel than any serious attempt at theology, history and philosophy.
This is also the reason that the "Resurrection" was proclaimed as the basis for Christianity.
(It was a con thought up from ancient Greek mythology by Paul. He's the one responsible for the Christianity we have today. Not Jesus!)
This version of the "Faith," when combined with the Roman gift of organization and brute force, led to the "Christianity" that has been handed down to us.
It seems to be the consensus among New Testament scholars that "Jesus” preached a message that teaches a way of behaving and living that applied to a first century reality.
However, the words of "Christ" are another matter.
If the sayings and parables of "Christ" are examined closely with the purpose of separating those words that were actually uttered by “Jesus” from those that were later attributed to him, we see a vast difference in the context, meaning, and purpose between the two.
The sayings of “Christ” display a metaphorical and allegorical context that suggest someone slightly removed from the everyday world.
The biblical words of "Jesus," however, were indeed a direct reflection of their place and time. (Just as today, we are all products of our own time and age)
The actual sayings of the historical "Jesus,” which upon close examination shows only a handful of thoughts and parables, are so simple and basic, with such underlying truth, that they can be applied to the human condition of any age. -A.W.J.
Please, Please pay attention to this> It is probably the closest you will ever get to the truth behind Jesus and the whole religious thing.
Don't blindly accept what other people try and tell you, go and find out for youself.
"Faith" can very well turn out to be a false God!
Your Humble Scribe;
Allan W Janssen
Labels: Alexandrian school of thought, christian, faith, jesus, resurrection
posted by Allan W Janssen | 2:48 p.m.
1 Comments:
History Trivia for non-Dummies Blog
A Different View of an "Eye for Eye"
The quotation from Exodus 21:24, "eye for eye, foot for foot..." is often understood to mean that that people have a right to revenge an injury to them. This was true in Old Testament times, even though the Gospel of Matthew at 5:38 refers to it and then rejects it at 5:39 ("turn the other cheek") in the New Testament.
What is interesting about the "eye for an eye" quotation, however, is that in Old Testament times it was also meant to put a limit on the amount of vengeance people could take when they suffered at the hands of another.
In ancient times it was customary that if one person from a family killed a person from a different family, the tradition was to kill not only the killer, but also kill everyone in his whole family as well.
So an "eye for an eye" was not only meant to allow for retaliation, but also to limit the extent of the vengeance so that wholesale bloodshed did not occur between families. Vengeance was to be proportional to the harm a person received.
Source: A Short History of Philosophy, Solomon & Higgins
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home