Nescience
Originally posted by ThatJerk
We-e-elll... history... ish... we're not really sure if the Israelites ever WERE in Egypt. It's possible, but there's precious little evidence of that fact, and there's some that they never were. History in the bible is distorted, at best... I'll take my high school text-book, thanks.
So are you denying the Israelites ever existed? What about the Canaanites? If you live by such an ignorant standard, what meaning does "history" have for you?
How is it great literature?
Read the
Synopic Gospels, read
John, read the
Luke Acts,
Johannine,
Pauline Letters etc. I ask you to analyze and challenge the authors of these writings, what are they trying to convey?
Doubling in Mark
Schematism in Matthew
Symbollism and Schematism in John
Romanticism, Universalism, and Repentence-Forgiveness in Luke
It is beautiful Literature, and if you think it is a bunch of crap, then I greatly pity you and your prejudice.
The New Testament is certainly an improvement, but it still has some glaring problems; Jesus approves of slavery and racism, for example, not to mention promising that cities who turn out his rabble-rousers will be destroyed.
Of course the Bible has problems, it is not a perfect book as some theists like to believe.
If these are parables then they are advocating that Christians either kill non-believers (O.T. style) or try and convert them and then wait for God to destroy them if they resist (N.T. style).
Depends on your point of view on what the Bible is trying to convey.
Jesus told Peter that Jesus would go to jerusalem and suffer, be spat upon, whipped, criticized, and crucified. Peter said to Jesus, "No, you don't understand." He was trying to "set" Christ straight. If you read about Peter and understand the doubling in Mark, Peter was blind the first time, he thought Jesus would come down with chariots, trumpets, and angels in all gloriousness and God would zap the bad guys and vindicate the good guys. Only during Peter's concession did he understand. He interpreted the Old Testament as a prophesy for God to come down and zap all the bad guys. But that wasn't the point at all.
Is the story valid? Who knows, but it is good literature.
If not literally, then how SHOULD I read, say Deuteronomy, to get the 'higher meaning'?
Read, Job, the author(s) of Job speak out against Deuteronomy (orthodoxy).
Oh, and please explain why you believe the bible's authors were intelligent.
It depends on your opinion and understaind of literature.
Look at the
structure and emphases in the stories, especially the Gospels, Job, etc.
Matthew's structure is beautiful, he writes schematically with A, narrative, and B, discourse. There are five periods in his schematic structure and are clearly divided from each other and fall into narrative and discourse sections, being the discourse that dominants over the narrative. The organization of Matthew, what Matthew emphasizes on, higher-righteousness, radical obedience, and the fruits.
Mark is personably my favorite, it is the shortest gospel, and probably the earliest. But the Synoptics and John are just beautiful to read and understand, the viewpoints on eschatology, their redaction criticism, and theological emphases.
Do you think any average author(s) could have written like them? I highly doubt it for that time and they are intelligent if you look at the structure and organization of such writings.
They should have, at the very least, got a competant continuity editor; whoever hacked that job sure messed it up royally. Want examples? There are many to choose from.
Those that are denouncing that the Bible is full of shit is more than enough, further carping about how it is not great literature is to be ignorant of literature.
One who says Jesus, Israelites, etc. did not exist is ignorant of history. If you do think this way, I suggest you study literature and history and just shut up with your worthless opinions and religious prejudice; it's repugnant and pathetic.
