"Staged" Creation

[Aiza]

(15th June 2012 23:29)Colanth Wrote:  The OT was 4 separate "Bibles", written by 4 different groups of people ("the Jews" was never a single coherent group) with 4 different stories.

What? No it wasn't. I THINK you are discussing the documentary hypothesis, which has fallen out of favor in modern literary analysis, but that refers to the Torah and not the "Bible", and there was never "4 different stories" either.

Quote:(There were different Abraham/Isaac stories too - in one, God never told Abraham to bring Isaac, in one Abraham killed Isaac and we never heard of him again. The current story wasn't in any of the originals.)

Wait what? What different stories, and what "originals"? Honest question. I am very very close to calling bs here, but I am biting my tongue waiting for your response on the very odd chance I may learn something new.

Quote:Where would that eye have been to witness the creation of everything? It didn't exist until after it (at least) was created.

That is my point

---

(16th June 2012 16:59)FallentoReason Wrote:  Have you ever wondered if the Gospels were written as allegories like Genesis was?

No, though parts of them do read allegorically and can be seen that way (I always use the example of the three gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh), not to mention the plethora of actual parables. Not all of the Gospels, no, nor does that stand up to even secular textual literary criticism, let alone Catholic doctrine.

There's also many examples in the Bible where everyone agrees or disagrees. But you are right that most of the individual stories in the Bible are important for their spiritual meanings.

[FallentoReason]

Aiza Wrote:There's also many examples in the Bible where everyone agrees or disagrees. But you are right that most of the individual stories in the Bible are important for their spiritual meanings.

Indeed that's what they're important for. But the deeper issue I'm addressing here is how exactly did they come across these teachings? Did they have no choice because it was a series of historical events OR are there deeper teachings from these societies (i.e the first Christians) which they are trying to convey through story-telling?

[Aiza]

(17th June 2012 08:06)FallentoReason Wrote:  But the deeper issue I'm addressing here is how exactly did they come across these teachings? Did they have no choice because it was a series of historical events OR are there deeper teachings from these societies (i.e the first Christians) which they are trying to convey through story-telling?

These teachings were received from the Apostles. And I don't see how these things are mutually exclusive. I believe that for example, Jesus telling the parables is a historical event and it also conveys deeper teachings. The individual parables themselves are not historical events (probably), and other flourishes on Jesus life may also have been added to convey these teachings and underline certain theological points (the meaning of the three gifts of the magi or the conversations on the cross for example), or they might just be convenient history. Either way it doesn't matter, does it?

[FallentoReason]

(17th June 2012 09:02)Aiza Wrote:  These teachings were received from the Apostles.

Debatable. Is there any concrete evidence that shows the Gospel authors knew any of the Apostles in person?

Quote:And I don't see how these things are mutually exclusive. I believe that for example, Jesus telling the parables is a historical event and it also conveys deeper teachings.

I'm arguing here that the Gospels as a whole are 'parables' or written allegorically. That would make the parables of Jesus a form of inception I guess.. a parable within a parable.

Quote:The individual parables themselves are not historical events (probably),

Yes, I definitely agree.

Quote: and other flourishes on Jesus life may also have been added to convey these teachings and underline certain theological points (the meaning of the three gifts of the magi or the conversations on the cross for example),

Without a doubt there are bits that aren't original to the greater parts of the Gospels e.g. Mark 16:9 onwards and John 21. Maybe you didn't mean exactly these sorts of 'enhancements' but I see them as definitely trying to make the manuscripts more convincing.

Quote: or they might just be convenient history. Either way it doesn't matter, does it?

What I brought up about later additions wouldn't be actual history. Anything that wasn't written by the original authors has to be seen as having a dishonest intent for being in there, unless the authorship of these additions can be verified and therefore get an understanding of why they might have added it.

I think it greatly matters how the Gospels should be interpreted because ultimately that will give you a better understanding of your own faith. I remember sharing these thoughts with a Christian friend and he would tell me 'but these allegorical interpretations have no place within Christianity!' and I asked 'but what is Christianity?' My point is this: how can you essentially debate against the fathers of Christianity about what Christianity is? I don't think anyone gets a right to say what it truly is but them. Therefore wouldn't it be beneficial (especially to Christians for obvious reasons) to know a) who wrote what and b) what they meant to say?

[Ace Otana]

(15th June 2012 23:29)Colanth Wrote:  I keep saying it - there are as many Christian sects as there are Christians. Each one makes up his or her own version.

You will notice that as you argue with more than one Christian. They have their own version of Christianity. Some believe hell is fire and brimstone others disagree. Some think all atheists go to hell, some disagree.
Some Christians even differ when it comes to god being all knowing or all powerful.

Each new Christian I argue with tends to have very different beliefs than the previous Christian. One told me I was ignorant because I didn't know about his version of Christianity. Well of course I fucking won't, they all have different versions, there's fucking millions of versions. I'm not going to be aware of them all, DUH!. That doesn't make me ignorant on Christianity. Stupid Xtians.
[End of rant]

Had to get that off my chest.

[Welsh cake]

The only thing remarkable about all this is that theists continue to believe in a creator god, considering matter and energy can't be created or destroyed.

There's ignorance and then there's wilful ignorance. There's believers in a creator god who haven't learned about fundamental physics, and then there's believers in a creator god who have learned about fundamental physics and persist in believing in a creator god. >.>