Yeah, but we already knew that

[Terminal Idiot]

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

 

[bullethead]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Eleven people reading this.

 

[bullethead]

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]

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]

The part I highlighted in blue.

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

 

[bullethead]

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]

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]

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:

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]

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

 

[oldfella1962]

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]

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

Yes.

 

[centerpin fan]

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

See post 15.

 

[jmharris23]

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]

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]

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]

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.