@shunyadragon have you ever read the NT?
Yes many times, and studied that NT in college level courses. Apparently you have not, because you are not eilling to cite the NT to support your assertions,
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
@shunyadragon have you ever read the NT?
By 'unitary view' I mean not everyone shared the same view.
There was no unitary view of Genesis among any group of people at any time.
@shunyadragon have you ever read the NT?
Did he now? Jesus quite often used various literary devices. The few examples that I know of could easily be explainable as that. Also what you see in the New Testament was not necessarily what Jesus said. It is what believers in him wrote that he said. The topic of the thread was about the authors of the NT, not the subject. There do appear to be enough quotations of some of them, such as Paul, to say for him at least the answer was yet.Jesus obviously did.
Did he now? Jesus quite often used various literary devices. The few examples that I know of could easily be explainable as that. Also what you see in the New Testament was not necessarily what Jesus said. It is what believers in him wrote that he said. The topic of the thread was about the authors of the NT, not the subject. There do appear to be enough quotations of some of them, such as Paul, to say for him at least the answer was yet.
By the way, the authors of the NT holding that belief is not a threat to Christianity, but claiming that Jesus believed that is a threat to your religion.
Lol, if you want to claim he didn't say what scripture says he did, you can make up whatever you like obviously. Jesus talked about the flood and Adam as real people and events.Did he now? Jesus quite often used various literary devices. The few examples that I know of could easily be explainable as that. Also what you see in the New Testament was not necessarily what Jesus said. It is what believers in him wrote that he said. The topic of the thread was about the authors of the NT, not the subject. There do appear to be enough quotations of some of them, such as Paul, to say for him at least the answer was yet.
By the way, the authors of the NT holding that belief is not a threat to Christianity, but claiming that Jesus believed that is a threat to your religion.
No, I did not say that. I said that we really have no clear idea what he said. You have to rely on the writers of the Gospels, all anonymous and none of them eyewitnesses. In fact they were written from over a generation to two generations after the events. Why would anyone expect them to be accurate?Lol, if you want to claim he didn't say what scripture says he did, you can make up whatever you like obviously. Jesus talked about the flood and Adam as real people and events.
It is not the concern whether the authors were known or not. The view toward Genesis and the Pentateuch of the day were pretty much universally considered literal concerning the Creation story, Adam and Eve, Noah and the flood, and Moses Exodus were as written and recorded Divinely inspired and real history. Yes, there were allegories, symbolism and literary devices applied throughout the Bible in many forms.No, I did not say that. I said that we really have no clear idea what he said. You have to rely on the writers of the Gospels, all anonymous and none of them eyewitnesses. In fact they were written from over a generation to two generations after the events. Why would anyone expect them to be accurate?
By the way, if you want to claim that Jesus was just an ordinary man and believed the myths of Genesis that is fine with me.
Where did I say he was ordinary? He was and is God in the flesh.No, I did not say that. I said that we really have no clear idea what he said. You have to rely on the writers of the Gospels, all anonymous and none of them eyewitnesses. In fact they were written from over a generation to two generations after the events. Why would anyone expect them to be accurate?
By the way, if you want to claim that Jesus was just an ordinary man and believed the myths of Genesis that is fine with me.
When you said that he took the myths of Genesis literally.Where did I say he was ordinary? He was and is God in the flesh.
He was there so he knew they were not myths.When you said that he took the myths of Genesis literally.
Sorry, you can't have it both ways.
Nope, that is merely your belief. Reality refutes it. Unless you want to claim that God is a huge liar. The problem is that you do not understand how we know that there was no Flood. That there never were just two people. If you did understand you would see how you are calling your own God a liar..He was there so he knew they were not myths.
If you have read the NT you would know that the geneology of Jesus Christ considers him literally a direct descendent of Adam. Luke 3: 23:38
The view toward Genesis and the Pentateuch of the day were pretty much universally considered literal
That is not the subject of the thread. This thread is devoted to what the authors of the NT described how they viewed the Genesis and the Pentateuch reflected i their writings.
You do realise the NT has at least 9 different authors, right? Are you seriously suggesting they all had the exact same view when they differ so sharply in other things?That is not the subject of the thread. This thread is devoted to what the authors of the NT described how they viewed the Genesis and the Pentateuch reflected i their writings.
I think, if I may be so bold, that your issue here is that you cannot ever accept NT authors having a non-literal view as you seem to believe that in order for one to be a true Christian and their beliefs to make sense, as you have already said, a literal view is needed.Well ah . . . everybody used literary devices at one time or the other including the authors of the NT. Yes Jesus Christ likely believed in a literal Genesis.
The genealogies are tampered with to make them fit so many generations. They're a literary device. Plus the two accounts don't match and are going for different things. One has Jesus be the son of Joseph the son of Jacob, to tie it back to Genesis, where the other hasn't - because Luke wasn't going for that kind of thing.If you assume these are intended as literally correct genealogies, rather than constructs designed to make a theological point.
Pre-modern "historical scholarship" was not the attempted recording of objective fact, but was generally constructed to make some point relevant to the present (political, moral, theological, etc.)
I've already demonstrated this not to be the case. Both literal and allegorical views existed at the time.
You claimed noting this fact was "off topic", now see your mistake?
Short of them actually announcing "This is obviously not to be taken literally..." what would you actually expect them to say if they interpreted them allegorically?
You can refer to events in exactly the same way whether they were literally true or allegorically true.
There simply isn't enough information to definitively state to what extent they considered them to be literally true, especially as modern attitudes towards fact/allegory and ancient attitudes are different, and believing in the literal truth of X says nothing about whether they believed in the literal truth of Y.
A genealogy might be a theological construct, while the flood a literal event (or vice versa).
If you assume these are intended as literally correct genealogies, rather than constructs designed to make a theological point.
Pre-modern "historical scholarship" was not the attempted recording of objective fact, but was generally constructed to make some point relevant to the present (political, moral, theological, etc.)
I've already demonstrated this not to be the case. Both literal and allegorical views existed at the time.
You claimed noting this fact was "off topic", now see your mistake?
Short of them actually announcing "This is obviously not to be taken literally..." what would you actually expect them to say if they interpreted them allegorically?
You can refer to events in exactly the same way whether they were literally true or allegorically true.
There simply isn't enough information to definitively state to what extent they considered them to be literally true, especially as modern attitudes towards fact/allegory and ancient attitudes are different, and believing in the literal truth of X says nothing about whether they believed in the literal truth of Y.
A genealogy might be a theological construct, while the flood a literal event (or vice versa).
The genealogies are tampered with to make them fit so many generations. They're a literary device. Plus the two accounts don't match and are going for different things. One has Jesus be the son of Joseph the son of Jacob, to tie it back to Genesis, where the other hasn't - because Luke wasn't going for that kind of thing.
I think, if I may be so bold, that your issue here is that you cannot ever accept NT authors having a non-literal view as you seem to believe that in order for one to be a true Christian and their beliefs to make sense, as you have already said, a literal view is needed.
So frankly, we could sit here all day telling you this isn't true but you've already decided the NT wouldn't make sense with a non-literal view, so nothing we say will pass the damn you've built around your ideology.
When you said that he took the myths of Genesis literally.
Sorry, you can't have it both ways.