RE: Literal and Not Literal
September 3, 2019 at 11:08 pm
(This post was last modified: September 3, 2019 at 11:09 pm by GrandizerII.)
(September 3, 2019 at 10:58 pm)Acrobat Wrote:Not a clear answer.(September 3, 2019 at 10:51 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Perhaps you can explain to me then the whole thing with the resurrection.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.
Was it intended to be a true account from the start?
It presented mysteriously in the text, but this much is conveyed by all the NT and gospel writers.
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?
(September 3, 2019 at 11:08 pm)Acrobat Wrote:(September 3, 2019 at 11:05 pm)Grandizer Wrote: 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?