[Serious] Literal and Not Literal

[Acrobat]

It's an impressive rock that prompted one person to think it was placed there directly by the gods ... It became a story as a result ... People loved the story about that impressive rock and it became true to them

People saw snake skins shed in the wild. They made stories out of them. That's the way it went back then. To satisfy their curiosity in the absence of proper scientific tools and mindset, that's what they had. They had other types of stories, sure. They also had this type of story.

So an impressive but entirely pointless rock? Providing no direction for life, serving no purpose or meaning for their community, other than to be entertained by its impressiveness?

This is the sort of stuff, communities dominated by threats of violence, and elements that could tare them apart, death, sickness and tragedy around every corner, saw as so fundamentally important that they passed it along to their children? A belief in an impressively pointless rock?

[GrandizerII]

It's an impressive rock that prompted one person to think it was placed there directly by the gods ... It became a story as a result ... People loved the story about that impressive rock and it became true to them

People saw snake skins shed in the wild. They made stories out of them. That's the way it went back then. To satisfy their curiosity in the absence of proper scientific tools and mindset, that's what they had. They had other types of stories, sure. They also had this type of story.

So an impressive but entirely pointless rock? Providing no direction for life, serving no purpose or meaning for their community, other than to be entertained by its impressiveness?

This is the sort of stuff, communities dominated by threats of violence, and elements that could tare them apart, death, sickness and tragedy around every corner, saw as so fundamentally important that they passed it along to their children? A belief in an impressively pointless rock?

Nope it was a rock that had meaning. It gave them hope, fostered their faith in the gods.

[Acrobat]

So an impressive but entirely pointless rock? Providing no direction for life, serving no purpose or meaning for their community, other than to be entertained by its impressiveness?

This is the sort of stuff, communities dominated by threats of violence, and elements that could tare them apart, death, sickness and tragedy around every corner, saw as so fundamentally important that they passed it along to their children? A belief in an impressively pointless rock?

Nope it was a rock that had meaning. It gave them hope, fostered their faith in the gods.

What hope is being derived by this impressive rock that does nothing? And faith in what? What were they suppose to have faith in God for?

The impressive rock, in the account you gave, even if we all acknowledged was divine, provides no basis for hope, meaning, or faith.

Perhaps you can explain to me then the whole thing with the resurrection.

Was it intended to be a true account from the start?

Sure, it was meant to be taken as a very real reality. That the resurrection, it’s embodiment of hope, the conquering of the despair of death, was as real as touching flesh and blood.

It presented mysteriously in the text, but this much is conveyed by all the NT and gospel writers.

[GrandizerII]

Perhaps you can explain to me then the whole thing with the resurrection.

Was it intended to be a true account from the start?

Sure, it was meant to be taken as a very real reality. That the resurrection, it’s embodiment of hope, the conquering of the despair of death, was as real as touching flesh and blood.

It presented mysteriously in the text, but this much is conveyed by all the NT and gospel writers.

Not a clear answer.

Were the resurrection accounts in the Gospels meant to be taken literally? Did Jesus literally rise from the dead? Or is it all purely symbolic?

---

Nope it was a rock that had meaning. It gave them hope, fostered their faith in the gods.

What hope is being derived by this impressive rock that does nothing? And faith in what? What were they suppose to have faith in God for?

The impressive rock, in the account you gave, even if we all acknowledged was divine, provides no basis for hope, meaning, or faith.

Says who? Acrobat?

[Acrobat]

Sure, it was meant to be taken as a very real reality. That the resurrection, it’s embodiment of hope, the conquering of the despair of death, was as real as touching flesh and blood.

It presented mysteriously in the text, but this much is conveyed by all the NT and gospel writers.

Not a clear answer.

Were the resurrection accounts in the Gospels meant to be taken literally? Did Jesus literally rise from the dead? Or is it all purely symbolic?

Yes, the resurrection is to be understand as Jesus literally conquering death, by resurrecting in very real and concrete way, in a bodily resurrection. Not just as a symbol of hope, but the very embodiment of it, in the flesh.

It why one the gospels has a doubting Thomas, feeling the wounds of the resurrected Christ.

---

What hope is being derived by this impressive rock that does nothing? And faith in what? What were they suppose to have faith in God for?

The impressive rock, in the account you gave, even if we all acknowledged was divine, provides no basis for hope, meaning, or faith.

Says who? Acrobat?

Says your own account,duh. There’s nothing to be read in it to derive any sort of hope of faith/trust in God in.

All your account did would have shown that God could make really impressive rock, that served no actual function or purpose.

[GrandizerII]

Not a clear answer.

Were the resurrection accounts in the Gospels meant to be taken literally? Did Jesus literally rise from the dead? Or is it all purely symbolic?

Yes, the resurrection is to be understand as Jesus literally conquering death, by resurrecting in very real and concrete way, in a bodily resurrection. Not just as a symbol of hope, but the very embodiment of it, in the flesh.

It why one the gospels has a doubting Thomas, feeling the wounds of the resurrected Christ.

Great, so however the stories came to be accepted as true could have been similar, process-wise, to how the stories in Genesis were accepted as true. People saw and interpreted things in certain ways, and stories meant to be taken as true arose whereby people listened and accepted as true.

Sidenote: hopefully you realize this is all a matter of faith anyway and not historically validated that Jesus rose from the dead.

---

Not a clear answer.

Were the resurrection accounts in the Gospels meant to be taken literally? Did Jesus literally rise from the dead? Or is it all purely symbolic?

Yes, the resurrection is to be understand as Jesus literally conquering death, by resurrecting in very real and concrete way, in a bodily resurrection. Not just as a symbol of hope, but the very embodiment of it, in the flesh.

It why one the gospels has a doubting Thomas, feeling the wounds of the resurrected Christ.

---

Says who? Acrobat?

Says your own account,duh. There’s nothing to be read in it to derive any sort of hope of faith/trust in God in.

All your account did would have shown that God could make really impressive rock, that served no actual function or purpose.

That just means you didn't appreciate what those people appreciated. You can't speak for hypothetical people in a hypothetical scenario that I made up myself. Lol ...

[Acrobat]

Yes, the resurrection is to be understand as Jesus literally conquering death, by resurrecting in very real and concrete way, in a bodily resurrection. Not just as a symbol of hope, but the very embodiment of it, in the flesh.

It why one the gospels has a doubting Thomas, feeling the wounds of the resurrected Christ.

Great, so however the stories came to be accepted as true could have been similar, process-wise, to how the stories in Genesis were accepted as true. People saw and interpreted things in certain ways, and stories meant to be taken as true arose whereby people listened and accepted as true.

Sidenote: hopefully you realize this is all a matter of faith anyway and not historically validated that Jesus rose from the dead.

The Gospel writers themselves wrote with the intent of resurrection being understand as literally true. They wanted their readers to take it this way, this is very clear within the text.

[GrandizerII]

Great, so however the stories came to be accepted as true could have been similar, process-wise, to how the stories in Genesis were accepted as true. People saw and interpreted things in certain ways, and stories meant to be taken as true arose whereby people listened and accepted as true.

Sidenote: hopefully you realize this is all a matter of faith anyway and not historically validated that Jesus rose from the dead.

The Gospel writers themselves wrote with the intent of resurrection being understand as literally true. They wanted their readers to take it this way, this is very clear within the text.

Some people would argue these stories are meant to be taken allegorically. What exactly would your argument to that be?

[Acrobat]

That just means you didn't appreciate what those people appreciated. You can't speak for hypothetical people in a hypothetical scenario that I made up myself. Lol ...

I’ve given you all the freedom to develop your hypothetical myth, In which all that took place was a story of how God made an impressive rock. The rock served no other function, according to your myth other than as showcase of God impressiveness.

Maybe you need to develop you myth more with this divinely formed rocked served some necessary purpose for the community, other than an awe of its impressiveness. I mean your rock myth, doesn’t even showcase a god with any concern for these people, or their lives.

---

The Gospel writers themselves wrote with the intent of resurrection being understand as literally true. They wanted their readers to take it this way, this is very clear within the text.

Some people would argue these stories are meant to be taken allegorically. What exactly would your argument to that be?

That it was to be taken as both, as real and symbolic.

Christ death was tragic defeat for the messiah, an irreconcilable fate, unexpected even by his own followers. If the resurrection wasn’t real, than their hope was more a product of desperation, than real, a desperate attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable. It’s becomes more or less the reality of nihilism, a clinging to hope that doesn’t exist.

The cross becomes the human symbol of despair, not of any victory or defeat of it, but the triumph of misery.

[Silver]

this is very clear within the text.

No, it is not. It is why you and your ilk are fond of cherry picking what is and is not to be taken literally.