Let's be biblically literary

[Phaedrus]

Jesus only symbolically died on the cross, he only metaphorically died for your rhetorical sins, and god's hyperbole is described in his all-loving two-dimensional character.

[mordant]

Even fundamentalists understand that some scripture was clearly not meant to be taken literally. You know, the inconvenient bits. Like the ones about not wearing mixed fabrics or that women are to "keep silent" in church. Their women would not stand for either one of those very clear commands. And even though the "keep silent" directive isn't safely tucked away in the Old Testament and thus far less easily dismissed as "not for today", they find ways to beat it into submission:

https://www.christiancourier.com/article...the-church

The notion that Jesus' death was symbolic, that original sin is a metaphor, is just taking this facile approach to interpretation a step or three further, and this is what mainline protestants generally do.

All holy books are designed to be a vague template that people can project upon any way they want. If you are all about control and guilt, you interpret it that way. If you're all about kum-by-yah, you project that on scripture. If you want to do cultish mind control, voila, that's what the Bible means for you and your followers.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Cherry-pickers are fueled with the oil pressed from metaphors. Fact.

[Minimalist]

The Docetists thought that jesus was just a mythical character.

I could be a docetist except I think that jebus was just a crock of shit.

[SYZ]

The story goes that the three wise men approached the manger where the baby messiah was born.

As they walked across the straw-covered floor, one of them stood on an upturned rake, and
recoiled in pain, saying; "Jesus fucking christ".

Mary looked up from the baby, and said; "Oh... that's a good name!"

[Dancefortwo]

The story goes that the three wise men approached the manger where the baby messiah was born.

As they walked across the straw-covered floor, one of them stood on an upturned rake, and
recoiled in pain, saying; "Jesus fucking christ".

Mary looked up from the baby, and said; "Oh... that's a good name!"

......and then they gave the baby Jesus some gold, incense and myrrh and Mary said,  "Wow! Thanks for the gold! The incense and myrrh though.....meh.  But the gold, oy vey, now my bastard son can go to college and make a name for himself."

[Bucky Ball]

I heard it on good authority, (Kimmy) ... that in fact he said
"Jesus H. Fucking Christ".

So if you want to understand what happened to Jewish thought in the 1st Century and how it magically morphed into Christianity, you have to read Philo of Alexandria.
The Gospel of John is virtually word-for-word (pun intended) Philo of Alexandria.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/philo/

[grympy]

Read a very interesting book in the early 70's, I think .

"The Passover Plot" by H J Schonfield. Not a very popular or respected book among his peers. However, I enjoyed, but was not convinced. Worth a glance. Your local library may have a copy, or will be able to order it in for you.

"The Passover Plot is a 1965 conspiracy theory book [1] by British biblical scholar Hugh J. Schonfield, who also published a translation of the New Testament with a Jewish perspective.[2] The book was adapted into a film, The Passover Plot (1976).

Based on his research into the social and religious culture in which Jesus was born, lived and died, and into other literature, including the source documents of the Gospels, Schonfield reached the following conclusions:

That Jesus was a deeply religious Jewish man, probably well-versed in the teachings of the local northern sects such as the Nazarenes and Essenes.
That growing up in biblical Galilee he had a skeptical and somewhat rebellious relationship to the hierarchy and teachings mandated by the authorities (the Saducees) of the Temple in Jerusalem.
That Jewish Messianic expectation was extremely high in those times, matched to the despair caused by the Roman occupation of the land and subjugation of the Jews.
That he was in many ways both typical of his times, and yet extraordinary in his religious convictions and beliefs, in his scholarship of the biblical literature, and in the fervency in which he lived his religion out in his daily life.
That he was convinced of his role as the expected Messiah based on the authority of his having been descendant from King David (the royal bloodline of David), and that he consciously and methodically, to the point of being calculating, attempted to fulfill that role, being eminently well-versed in the details of what that role entailed.
That he was convinced of the importance of his fulfilling the role perfectly (after all prophesy and expectation), and that he could not allow himself to fail, as that would undoubtedly lead to his being declared a false Messiah.
That he was perfectly aware of the consequences of his actions all along the way, and that he directed his closest supporters, the original twelve Apostles, unknowingly to aid him in his plans.
That he involved the least possible number of supporters in his plans ("need to know" basis), therefore very few knew of the details of his final plan, and even then only the least amount of information necessary.[3]

The culmination of his plan was to be his death (the crucifixion), his resurrection and his reign as the true kingly and priestly messiah, not in heaven but on earth—the realized king of the Jews."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Passover_Plot

My basic position on Jesus: Existence likely/probable , but is irrelevant to Christianity and to the New Testament which is myth.

I still enjoy history and archeology which brings to light new information: IMO 'real ' scholars and archeologists follow the evidence and see where that leads them. They do not begin with a conclusion and try to prove it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Christians appealing to evidence to buttress their faith are tacitly admitting that their faith is not enough.

[Minimalist]

I read the Passover Plot long ago as well.  Unpersuasive then and almost laughable now but it does demonstrate how virtually anyone can look into the pile of shit that jesus freaks swear by and construct their own theory.

A real jesus is no more necessary to xtians than a real Questzlcoatl was to the Aztecs.

Now, for a really good religious themed book try "A Canticle For Leibowitz."

[mordant]

I read the Passover Plot long ago as well.  Unpersuasive then and almost laughable now but it does demonstrate how virtually anyone can look into the pile of shit that jesus freaks swear by and construct their own theory.

A real jesus is no more necessary to xtians than a real Questzlcoatl was to the Aztecs.

Now, for a really good religious themed book try "A Canticle For Leibowitz."

I read that a few years back. A whole religion based on some guy's shopping list. Sounds about right.

[Minimalist]

Bingo.

"Pound pastrami, can kraut, six bagels--bring home for Emma."

Beats the fuck out of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, don't it?

[grympy]

The story goes that the three wise men approached the manger where the baby messiah was born.

As they walked across the straw-covered floor, one of them stood on an upturned rake, and
recoiled in pain, saying; "Jesus fucking christ".

Mary looked up from the baby, and said; "Oh... that's a good name!"

 One of the more esoteric things I learned in the army was the name of god. 

I'm sure you must have heard someone  exclaim  "Jesus H Christ!"  The "H"  is for Jesus' dad, Huey.

When out bush, some of the guys would have words with Huey. EG; it began raining, heavily, scrotum wet again. ; "thanks a fucking lot Huey!" or when it was too hot ;" Hey Huey! A bit of rain would be nice " 

---these same guys left notes out for Santa , telling him  not to to let  his reindeer shit on our roof. Worked  too.   

[SYZ]

Send her down, Hughie!

What about this baby?

[Dancefortwo]

I heard it on good authority, (Kimmy) ... that in fact he said
"Jesus H. Fucking Christ".

So if you want to understand what happened to Jewish thought in the 1st Century and how it magically morphed into Christianity, you have to read Philo of Alexandria.
The Gospel of John is virtually word-for-word (pun intended) Philo of Alexandria.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/philo/

The early Christians were very influenced by Philo's works.   Isn't it interesting how similar Philo's mocking of Carabbas account is to the mocking of Jesus?  Hummm.  Philo's work was written before the gospels. Hummmmmmm.  And again, I say...hummmmmm.  

There was a certain madman named Carabbas ... this man spent all this days and nights naked in the roads, minding neither cold nor heat, the sport of idle children and wanton youths;

and they, driving the poor wretch as far as the public gymnasium, and setting him up there on high that he might be seen by everybody, flattened out a leaf of papyrus and put it on his head instead of a diadem, and clothed the rest of his body with a common door mat instead of a cloak and instead of a sceptre they put in his hand a small stick of the native papyrus which they found lying by the way side and gave to him;  and when, like actors in theatrical spectacles, he had received all the insignia of royal authority, and had been dressed and adorned like a king, the young men bearing sticks on their shoulders stood on each side of him instead of spear-bearers, in imitation of the bodyguards of the king, and then others came up, some as if to salute him, and others making as though they wished to plead their causes before him, and others pretending to wish to consult with him about the affairs of the state.

Then from the multitude of those who were standing around there arose a wonderful shout of men calling out Maris!; and this is the name by which it is said that they call the kings among the Syrians; for they knew that Agrippa was by birth a Syrian, and also that he was possessed of a great district of Syria of which he was the sovereign;

[Bucky Ball]

I heard it on good authority, (Kimmy) ... that in fact he said
"Jesus H. Fucking Christ".

So if you want to understand what happened to Jewish thought in the 1st Century and how it magically morphed into Christianity, you have to read Philo of Alexandria.
The Gospel of John is virtually word-for-word (pun intended) Philo of Alexandria.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/philo/

The early Christians were very influenced by Philo's works.   Isn't it interesting how similar Philo's mocking of Carabbas account is to the mocking of Jesus?  Hummm.  Philo's work was written before the gospels. Hummmmmmm.  And again, I say...hummmmmm.  

There was a certain madman named Carabbas ... this man spent all this days and nights naked in the roads, minding neither cold nor heat, the sport of idle children and wanton youths;

and they, driving the poor wretch as far as the public gymnasium, and setting him up there on high that he might be seen by everybody, flattened out a leaf of papyrus and put it on his head instead of a diadem, and clothed the rest of his body with a common door mat instead of a cloak and instead of a sceptre they put in his hand a small stick of the native papyrus which they found lying by the way side and gave to him;  and when, like actors in theatrical spectacles, he had received all the insignia of royal authority, and had been dressed and adorned like a king, the young men bearing sticks on their shoulders stood on each side of him instead of spear-bearers, in imitation of the bodyguards of the king, and then others came up, some as if to salute him, and others making as though they wished to plead their causes before him, and others pretending to wish to consult with him about the affairs of the state.

Then from the multitude of those who were standing around there arose a wonderful shout of men calling out Maris!; and this is the name by which it is said that they call the kings among the Syrians; for they knew that Agrippa was by birth a Syrian, and also that he was possessed of a great district of Syria of which he was the sovereign;

Oh. It must just all be a coincidence.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Now, for a really good religious themed book try "A Canticle For Leibowitz."

Or Dune.

[Drich]

The story goes that the three wise men approached the manger where the baby messiah was born.

As they walked across the straw-covered floor, one of them stood on an upturned rake, and
recoiled in pain, saying; "Jesus fucking christ".

Mary looked up from the baby, and said; "Oh... that's a good name!"

the joke punch line is Jesus H. Christ. oh, good nme.

[Drich]

Not sure where most of you think the bible is not to be taken literally.

the blending of fabrics is an OT jew command that was to be taken literally for OT jews.

Women in the church being quite was and still is a command to be taken seriously,in that day more often than not women habitually interrupted the service (it is spelled out in the context IE if a woman has a question let her not interrupt the service but ask her husband at home) In all services today men and women alike are to remain silent and do until called upon.

[Minimalist]

Not sure where most of you think the bible is not to be taken literally.

Between the covers, dumbass.

[Bucky Ball]

It's "quiet", not "quite".
A total charlatan who claims to have a successful business, yet cannot spell OR even know how to use a spell-checker is lying.
He knows NOTHING about Biblical scholarship. He's ripping off the founders of this forum by preaching his bullshit here.

1 Corinthians 14:34
"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says."

Obviously for Paul, the Hebrew law was still very much in effect, and he SPECIFICALLY names women and NOT men. 
There was no OT and NT for the first Christians ... they had ONLY the OT, and they were still Jews. There was no "break" or boundary
between OT and NT. In Acts it says they continued to go to the temple to worship, ... every day. They remained Jews.
Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew. he told his followers that there were some among then that would see the end-times.
He was wrong. He never said he came to start anything.

At the END of the 1st Century, they were still Jews. The Jewish High Priest required the reading of the Expulsion Curses ... to get RID of the trouble-makers, (members of the Way subsect ... ie those who would LATER to be called "Christians", ... the Benedictions Against the Minim, be read at every synagogue service, (in which "Christians" were STILL participating)... end of FIRST Century. Why did John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, in the year 400 CE, tell his congregation to stop going to the synagogue ? Because they were still Jews.

Even the Gospel of John recognizes they were still going and were still Jews and were not welcome .. yet were there anyway.
https://www.umass.edu/wsp/alpha/texts/ne...usion.html
https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/1...0199783175

This Drich person is 110% ignorant of history and the Bible. He is a total 100 % fraud. Expert in nothing.

[Minimalist]

A total charlatan who claims to have a successful business, yet cannot spell OR even know how to use a spell-checker is lying.

Hey.  Maybe Dripshit is Trump?

[grympy]

It's "quiet", not "quite".
A total charlatan who claims to have a successful business, yet cannot spell OR even know how to use a spell-checker is lying.
He knows NOTHING about Biblical scholarship. He's ripping off the founders of this forum by preaching his bullshit here.

1 Corinthians 14:34
"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says."

Obviously for Paul, the Hebrew law was still very much in effect, and he SPECIFICALLY names women and NOT men. 
There was no OT and NT for the first Christians ... they had ONLY the OT, and they were still Jews. There was no "break" or boundary
between OT and NT. In Acts it says they continued to go to the temple to worship, ... every day. They remained Jews.
Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew. he told his followers that there were some among then that would see the end-times.
He was wrong. He never said he came to start anything.

At the END of the 1st Century, they were still Jews. The Jewish High Priest required the reading of the Expulsion Curses ... to get RID of the trouble-makers, (members of the Way subsect ... ie those who would LATER to be called "Christians", ... the Benedictions Against the Minim, be read at every synagogue service, (in which "Christians" were STILL participating)... end of FIRST Century. Why did John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, in the year 400 CE, tell his congregation to stop going to the synagogue ? Because they were still Jews.

Even the Gospel of John recognizes they were still going and were still Jews and were not welcome .. yet were there anyway.
https://www.umass.edu/wsp/alpha/texts/ne...usion.html
https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/1...0199783175

This Drich person is 110% ignorant of history and the Bible. He is a total 100 % fraud. Expert in nothing.

Thanks for that .I've had Drich on ignore for some. Because he was annoying and insulted me rather that I wrote. I do not accept ad hominem attacks more than once.  

If enough people ignore him perhaps he'll go away.

I suspected he may not be a trained scholar due to the dearth supporting sources .His posts certainly have the whiff of an autodidact with a chip on his shoulder.  

Yes, Paul is citing Judaic law. Not sure if it is one of the mitzvot in the Torah.  I'll check it out . Covering the head for women extends to being in public, where traditionally they wear horsehair wigs OVER their natural hair.  Now I can't swear  horsehair wig thing is kosher. I saw it an excellent  documentary series about different religions. .   By the  ABC,Public Broadcasting here 
 
Still today, Orthodox women AND men must cover their heads and are separated  in temple.  
 
A bit obtuse; As a child, I had Irish Catholicism  imposed on me against my will. Anyway, until I think the second Vatican  council. (1965)Women were obliged to cover their heads in church .They were  graciously allowed to sit with the men. 


FOUND IT; it's from the Talmud :"A woman's voice is prohibited because it is sexually provocative"  (Talmud.Berachot 24a)
A simple and obvious thing to do in tracing the origin of the rule.


PS Thanks for that bit about Jews being excluded, I didn't know that. Makes perfect sense though .  It was Paul who invented what was eventually widely called Christianity (in about the fourth century, I think.Emperor Theodosius?) Paul- de-Jewified the new sect, abolishing most of the ritual mitzvot .

Drich said it was Peter who abolished circumcision.  It was actually Peter, Barnabas and Paul. PLUS the mitzvah (commandment)  of the bris is NOT one of the 613 mitzvot.  It is a separate commandment, part of the Abrahamic covenant , well before the alleged Exodus.* 

However ,the timelines of any and all people and  events  in the Torah, umm, "tend to be a smidge unreliable."

Disclaimer ;I do not now and have never claimed  to be trained Biblical scholar.  I do claim  some basic training in scholarly method at university. 

))))))))))))))))))))))0_)))))))))))))))))))))))

* *Many Jews [at the time ,especially]  concluded that God broke the Abrahamic covenant by allowing the Shoah,

[Minimalist]

Dripshit is no kind of scholar either.  He's just an idiot with a bible.

[grympy]

Dripshit is no kind of scholar either.  He's just an idiot with a bible.

snap.