the case for a literal interpretation of Genesis

Many times on the inter-webs, I meet liberal Christians who think we should not take the bible literally or that some bible passages can only make sense as allegory. What they never tell us is when to read the bible allegorically and when to take it literally. There are many believers who say the bible has never been taken literally except by the fundamentalists, do such people see any difficulty a liberal reading of the bible would pose?

This christian however believes that taking Genesis, at least the first chapters as allegory poses more problems than it solves. One would hope that after coming to such an astute observation, he would maybe read some other book, maybe the Vedas or the Koran or the Gita, maybe their creation stories are a little better.

The believer identifies the following as arising from an allegorical reading of Genesis

Without Genesis, there is no:

Creation

Man

Gender roles

Fall

Sin

Need for redemption (and therefore no prophets or New Testament or gospel)

Covenant with Abraham

Land of Israel

Children of Israel (no lineage for Jesus Christ)

Tribes of Israel

Moses et cetera

This author goes further to ask if Genesis is allegory, how does one justify the existence of Jesus. The authors of his[Jesus] genealogy mention Adam. If Genesis is allegory, Adam is allegory and one can say with justice Jesus is allegory.

His/her solution is to believe in King James Bible as literal. There is no changing their mind.

Do other believers see a problem in taking Genesis as allegory and how do they resolve the issue when they arrive in the New Testament and Jesus several mentions of Adam and Eve. Can the bible be saved by holding both as allegory and as literal? IS this a viable position or is it everywhere beset with difficulties?

Advertisements

On the quest for the historical Jesus

Here is a challenge on the question of the historicity of the Jeebus character.

Some time in the past when we had this debate, some theists, I recall argued that even atheist scholars agree that Jesus existed. I am not calling to question their scholarship qualifications, what I want us to agree on is which Jesus do they agree existed?

1. Do the atheists believe there was a Jesus son of a god and woman?

2. Do they believe that the accounts given in the gospels and letters of Paul are valid biographies?

3. Do they believe the Jesus fellow levitated at a later point to heaven wherever this is located?

If the Jesus they believe to have existed is not the above, then my question is why not just take the mythicist position? I think it is a consistent position. I agree with Carrier and those like him who reasonably say Jesus did not exist.

If anyone has evidence that my position is not warranted, I open to a demonstration of the same and I will gladly add Jesus to the list of eminent persons who have graced the planet with their presence and are now long dead.

What is Mary’s relationship to Jesus

I will give you a guide

1. If he was born of Mary, she was his mother.
2. She “being with child by the Holy Ghost,” and Father, Son and Holy Ghost being one, she bore to him the relation of wife.
3. God being the Father of all mankind, and God and Christ being one, she was his daughter.
4. She being the daughter of God, and Christ being the Son of God, she was therefore his sister.

The Christ by Remsburg

Easter is approaching

and we have questions.

1. If Moses was inspired and the book of the law was lost and destroyed and later written by Ezra, was he [Ezra] also inspired and if yes was the inspiration of Moses important? [WE are granting for argument’s sake Moses walked on the planet]

2. HOW was David ancestry important in the life of Jeebus if he was born of the holy spirit?

3. How long was Jeebus’ ministry?

4. When was he born?

5. Where was his ministry based and how many times was he in Jerusalem?

6. Was he falsely accused?

7. When did he die?

 

The good man Jesus and scoundrel Christ

by P. Pullman

Thanks my friend LoT for always reminding me to read the books by Pullman.

I know it is quite some work to herd cats, and I wouldn’t try even if you paid me to. But for those of who like reading, this is an interesting read.

Pullman tells of the circumstance of Jesus and Christ’s birth, their growing up and their differences as children

I like the conversation at the poolside.

And the prayer of Jesus is out of this world. Part of the prayer, which most of us would agree with

‘Lord, if I thought you were listening, I’d pray for this above all: that any church set up in your name should remain poor, and powerless, and modest. That it should wield no authority except that of love. That it should never cast anyone out. That it should own no property and make no laws. That it should not condemn, but only forgive.

Go read the book. You will love it, that you can trust me.

There are no Christians

Only Paulines and Katlicks!

Nietzsche wrote in the Antichrist

I shall go back a bit, and tell you the authentic history of Christianity- The very word Christianity is a misunderstanding- at bottom there was only one Christian and he died on the cross.

[…]It is an error amounting to nonsensicality to see in ‘faith’, and particularly in faith in salvation through Christ, the distinguishing mark of the Christian: only the Christian way of life, the life lived by him who died on the cross is Christian..

[..] The Christian- he who for two thousand years has passed as a christian- is simply a psychological self delusion. Closely examined, it appears that, despite all his faith, he has only been ruled by his instincts- and what instincts!

Look at that and the claim by most evangelical Christians that they have been freed from the law and now they have entered a new covenant with god regardless of evidence to the contrary.

They ignore the teachings of Jesus on the law and go by Paul. I don’t think they can have them both ways. Either Jesus founded their delusion or Paul. If it is Jesus, then until heaven and earth passes not a dot of the law will change and if it be Paul, then Jesus is irrelevant in their belief.

What do you think? Have I misrepresented Christians here?

An apologist lying through his teeth

If Jesus lived, he said[Mathew 5:17-19]

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

So, a christian who makes a claim to the contrary is cherry picking what to follow and is lying in the process.