The Bible shifted some Gears in my mind.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sun Aug 30, 2015 12:06 pm

Depends how you read and interpret the Bible. It was never intended to be read literally by the writer with a few exceptions.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Sun Aug 30, 2015 12:46 pm

Ted;1485252 wrote: Depends how you read and interpret the Bible. It was never intended to be read literally by the writer with a few exceptions.

Its a mixture of literal and symbolic, ect...

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sun Aug 30, 2015 1:14 pm

There are some stories based on an historical event but the stories should not be taken literally. The birth story of Jesus is midrash as is the crucifixion story. Yes Jesus was born and he was crucified but the story as a whole must be read as midrash. The creation story is a myth but has value within the mythical part. Paul's authentic letters do give us some history.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Sun Aug 30, 2015 6:28 pm

Ted;1485277 wrote: There are some stories based on an historical event but the stories should not be taken literally. The birth story of Jesus is midrash as is the crucifixion story. Yes Jesus was born and he was crucified but the story as a whole must be read as midrash. The creation story is a myth but has value within the mythical part. Paul's authentic letters do give us some history.

The birth story of Jesus is history, but I can understand those who have a hard time believing it; it was a most unusual birth. Being conceived by the Holy Spirit, a woman getting pregnant without the seed of a man entering her; that's a hard thing to swallow; yes.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 2:46 pm

Jesus' mother was in all likelihood Mary. His father may have been Joseph but the ancients called him a mamzer which implied a person of questionable parentage. No angel choir, no star that wanders around leading folks anywhere, No wisement, no trip to Egypt, No sensus of that kind at that time. In fact that is not a census. No miraculous birth. These things are not mentioned in history. Something that astounding would most certainly have reached the historians ears but it did not. Same with the crucifixion, No earthquake,No dead Saints coming out of their graves, No tear in the curtain in the temple. This is all midrash and has to be read as such. Yes Jesus was born and died in crucifixion. MIDRASH. No mention of any of this in the writings of the historians. They simply did not happen.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 6:18 pm

Ted;1485361 wrote: Jesus' mother was in all likelihood Mary. His father may have been Joseph but the ancients called him a mamzer which implied a person of questionable parentage. No angel choir, no star that wanders around leading folks anywhere, No wisement, no trip to Egypt, No sensus of that kind at that time. In fact that is not a census. No miraculous birth. These things are not mentioned in history. Something that astounding would most certainly have reached the historians ears but it did not. Same with the crucifixion, No earthquake,No dead Saints coming out of their graves, No tear in the curtain in the temple. This is all midrash and has to be read as such. Yes Jesus was born and died in crucifixion. MIDRASH. No mention of any of this in the writings of the historians. They simply did not happen.

In post 1125 I list over 30 historians who mention it in history.

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... l-113.html

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 7:06 pm

Sorry but the story as written is midrash and not history. The Rev. Dr. Rabbi Robert Daum at VST, Crossan and Borg recognized as the premier Jesus scholars in the world, Bp John Shelby Spong. and so on. Yes Jesus is an historical person but no miraculous birth and he did not die to save us from our sins. He died for treason. The whole atonement theology is demeaning to the Divine. Imagine a god who is so petulant and blood thirsty that he would demand a blood sacrifice, even his own sun. That does not seem to reflect the God manifest in Jesus of Nazareth. Who could trust a god like that?

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 7:55 pm

Ted;1485380 wrote: Sorry but the story as written is midrash and not history. The Rev. Dr. Rabbi Robert Daum at VST, Crossan and Borg recognized as the premier Jesus scholars in the world, Bp John Shelby Spong. and so on. Yes Jesus is an historical person but no miraculous birth and he did not die to save us from our sins. He died for treason. The whole atonement theology is demeaning to the Divine. Imagine a god who is so petulant and blood thirsty that he would demand a blood sacrifice, even his own sun. That does not seem to reflect the God manifest in Jesus of Nazareth. Who could trust a god like that?

You said no historian wrote about it; I disagreed and supplied you with over 30 who did write about it. Your saying things that just are not true. Mixing truth with lies; and that can never be trusted. Its volatile and nuclear; a deadly mixture of confusion.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Tue Sep 01, 2015 8:48 pm

The major historians in the world simply do not agree. Their work is subject to peer review and a lot of scholarship. I do not trust everything that is written but the the things that have a scholarly research behind it. Of course some wrote some time ago and new research has shown otherwise. It has to make sense in the whole telling and proof offered by competent scholars who do not set out with the issue prejudged. Neil Silberman one of the authors of the "Bible Unearthed" is a recognized historian related to the ancient near east. Any way if you feel more secure in your way that is ok with me.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Wed Sep 02, 2015 10:32 am

Ted;1485458 wrote: The major historians in the world simply do not agree. Their work is subject to peer review and a lot of scholarship. I do not trust everything that is written but the the things that have a scholarly research behind it. Of course some wrote some time ago and new research has shown otherwise. It has to make sense in the whole telling and proof offered by competent scholars who do not set out with the issue prejudged. Neil Silberman one of the authors of the "Bible Unearthed" is a recognized historian related to the ancient near east. Any way if you feel more secure in your way that is ok with me.

You said no historian wrote about Christ, I showed over 30 who did. You are saying things that are wrong. And your not admitting the wrong when showed.

You can't debate someone like that.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Sep 02, 2015 7:38 pm

I did not say no historian. They are simply in error. J D Crossan, M. Borg, Matthew Fox, J. S. Spong an a host of others. These folks make sense and I don't have to hang my brain up at the church entrance.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:17 am

Ted;1485528 wrote: I did not say no historian. They are simply in error. J D Crossan, M. Borg, Matthew Fox, J. S. Spong an a host of others. These folks make sense and I don't have to hang my brain up at the church entrance.

There are hundreds of these sites on the internet;;

Historical Evidence of Jesus Christâ€™s Resurrection

;

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Thu Sep 03, 2015 7:35 pm

Mostly guess work and wishful thinking. Doesn't cut it.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Thu Sep 03, 2015 8:05 pm

No miraculous birth, no miraculous conception (the normal process, no star. no census, no exodus as written in the Bible, no wise men, no trip to Egypt, no Adam and Eve. no walking on water unless you are wearing boots. Never hear a snake speak yet. Jericho was a ruined unihabited city when Joshua was supposed to have attacked it. God is not somewhere up there sitting on a throne with a gigantic book beside him so that he can write our sins down. One question How did Judas die. I also love the entry into Jerusalem "He came wriding on a donkey and a foal of an ass". Neat feat.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:36 pm

THE BIBLE SHIFTED SOME GEARS IN MY MIND, think I may write a book on that; its a giant subject, and its not a closed book. The bible is still being written.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 5:20 pm

It is not the Bible that shifted some gears but the readers that did.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 6:38 pm

Ted;1485748 wrote: It is not the Bible that shifted some gears but the readers that did.

The bible has shifted the gears of knowledge, but your right, readers have shifted many biblical gears into the wrong speed.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 7:02 pm

That is your opinion but not mine. We are finally beginning to understand what the Bible says to us in the 21st century. The first 300 years they understood the Bible for their time. They knew it was not to be taken literally. They did not believe that Jesus was divine. It must be reinterpreted with each new generation and in-between based on our advancements in knowledge, understanding and conceptualization ability.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 7:24 pm

It's not unlike the idea of people taking Aesop and Grimm and gospel.

Or the story of Paul Bunyan and Davy Crocket.

George's Cherry Tree?

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sat Sep 05, 2015 7:31 pm

with the exception that once one begins to take the seriously and and realizes that it cannot be taken as history or as literal truth it becomes a "More than" book.javascript://

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Sun Sep 06, 2015 10:24 am

LarsMac;1485759 wrote: It's not unlike the idea of people taking Aesop and Grimm and gospel.

Or the story of Paul Bunyan and Davy Crocket.

George's Cherry Tree?

Oh the bible has out glowed those books by far. A best seller in the top ten for over 400 years running. Its in most court houses, and most motels and hotels. Its the number one shoplifted book in the world. WAY beyond Aesop, Grimm, Bunyan and Crocket-- way MORE meaningful to the masses. The bible has more followers than all the mythical examples you can pull up combined! It has buildings constructed in its name, thousands of them.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Sun Sep 06, 2015 11:46 am

Consider this scientific evidence about the bible;

Bible Prophecy - 101 Science Facts from the Bible

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sun Sep 06, 2015 6:42 pm

The archaeological evidence doen not support the Bible as a history book.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Mon Sep 07, 2015 7:29 am

Ted;1485788 wrote: The archaeological evidence doen not support the Bible as a history book.

I totally disagree;

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... bible.html

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Sep 07, 2015 11:16 am

Perhaps you should read "The Bible Unearthed" by Finkelstein and Silbermann. Trust the archaeologists who do not have a personal agenda. There are dozens of books and scholars that make the same point. No talking snakes LOL no roving stars LOL etc. But if you wish to believe it go ahead.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:19 am

Ted;1485832 wrote: Perhaps you should read "The Bible Unearthed" by Finkelstein and Silbermann. Trust the archaeologists who do not have a personal agenda. There are dozens of books and scholars that make the same point. No talking snakes LOL no roving stars LOL etc. But if you wish to believe it go ahead.

I believe that it is possible that the time period may have matched up with Haley's Comet, which is the common belief, but then, as the actual date in question is accepted as being +/- 100 years or so, with Haley's Comet recurring every 70 years it would be difficult for it NOT to have appeared within that time frame.

As for the number of historians who have written about Jesus, there are also a multitude who have written about Jack the Ripper, who he was & his background - how his identity was covered up, due to his being the member of the Royalty, etc. We still have such historians these days, only we call them conspiracists.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:12 pm

There have been lots of theories about the star but none stand up to critical scrutiny. Right about the historians. I do not consider those historians and archaeologists who start out with an agenda. ie a theory about Jericho and then set out to prove it when the evidence is to the contrary.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Fri Sep 11, 2015 5:25 pm

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

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 1:21 pm

Unfortunately it is Wikipedia which publishes anything one sends in. In other word someone can decide the moon is made of green cheese and that would make it in. As a research site it is useless..

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 4:27 pm

Ted;1486201 wrote: Unfortunately it is Wikipedia which publishes anything one sends in. In other word someone can decide the moon is made of green cheese and that would make it in. As a research site it is useless..

I use it, and it is useful to me, just not useful to you. Again, you using the statement that " The moon is made of cheese", is a person " Using Myths" to their advantage; trying to elevate the myth to match a reality that they disagree with. Trying to equate a myth to a reality does not cancel out the reality, it makes it more real. When a person compares a myth to a reality, they are trying to say that a cartoon is just as real as a human movement and belief. Because they want to USE the cartoon to degrade a real human objective belief that THEY don't accept.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:13 pm

With all due respect that is a load of rubbish. Do you have any idea about "myth"? Much of Wikipedia is written by folks who really don't know what they are talking about. So be it.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:04 am

Ted;1486251 wrote: With all due respect that is a load of rubbish. Do you have any idea about "myth"? Much of Wikipedia is written by folks who really don't know what they are talking about. So be it.

Much of your beef against the church and religion NEEDS to use myths in your diatribes! Myths are part of your defense; your conversation;

you need myths. Its in you, because it comes out of you.

Subtract myths from your argument, and you barely have none. So its a crutch for you.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Tue Sep 15, 2015 12:17 pm

My definition of a Myth...

A female Moth.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Tue Sep 22, 2015 1:01 pm

That is a complete misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of myth. Myth like Jesus' parables are stories created to teach a lesson or an attempt to try to understand a what they could not explain at their time. Myth is not a fairy tale. but if people want to believe it that way that is fine with me. Classroom teachers often use myth or created stories to get a lesson across.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Wed Sep 23, 2015 11:03 am

Motht of my clathroom teacherth were called myth.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Sep 23, 2015 11:50 am

One should get with the original meaning and purpose of "myth".

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Fri Sep 25, 2015 12:31 pm

Ted;1486672 wrote: One should get with the original meaning and purpose of "myth".

Educate us.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Fri Sep 25, 2015 1:12 pm

I would suggest going to an institution of higher learning for several years and in that time take a course or to in midrash and how the ancients thought and how they wrote. You wanted educated then go for it. How does one propose to read any of the ancient documents without some knowledge of the past?????? The bible needs to be updated to our time.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Fri Sep 25, 2015 2:37 pm

Ted;1486792 wrote: I would suggest going to an institution of higher learning for several years and in that time take a course or to in midrash and how the ancients thought and how they wrote. You wanted educated then go for it. How does one propose to read any of the ancient documents without some knowledge of the past?????? The bible needs to be updated to our time.

I think I will study Midrash, because until you mentioned it, I never heard of it.

I will look at it.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Fri Sep 25, 2015 3:06 pm

Mickiel;1486806 wrote: I think I will study Midrash, because until you mentioned it, I never heard of it.

I will look at it.

This helped a bit.

What Is Midrash? (Definition of Midrash)

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Sat Sep 26, 2015 2:10 pm

Mickiel;1486811 wrote: This helped a bit.

What Is Midrash? (Definition of Midrash)

The bible was not written in Midrash, midrash is simply a form of telling what was already written in the bible. From what I understand about it. Story telling. A form of editing or translation; again opinions of explination.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Sep 26, 2015 3:07 pm

Mickiel;1486876 wrote: The bible was not written in Midrash, midrash is simply a form of telling what was already written in the bible. From what I understand about it. Story telling. A form of editing or translation; again opinions of explination.
You have just given a perfect description of the Bible.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Sat Sep 26, 2015 3:11 pm

FourPart;1486879 wrote: You have just given a perfect description of the Bible.

This thread has 100 pages, I don't think I have " Perfectly" explained or described anything on any of them.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Sep 26, 2015 3:16 pm

Mickiel;1486881 wrote: This thread has 100 pages, I don't think I have " Perfectly" explained or described anything on any of them.

Story telling. A form of editing or translation; again opinions of explination.
Seems pretty accurate to me.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Sat Sep 26, 2015 3:54 pm

FourPart;1486883 wrote: Seems pretty accurate to me.

The bible contains more than one dynamic; its simily, metaphor, poetic, historical, factual, territorial, and I think it has translation errors in it. When they translated it into Spanish or latin, the translators threw in much error.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sun Sep 27, 2015 2:38 am

Mickiel;1486888 wrote: The bible contains more than one dynamic; its simily, metaphor, poetic, historical, factual, territorial, and I think it has translation errors in it. When they translated it into Spanish or latin, the translators threw in much error.
That sounds like a description of Ted's Midrash. You are arguing against it being Midrash, but continue to describe it as such.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Sun Sep 27, 2015 12:14 pm

FourPart;1486900 wrote: That sounds like a description of Ted's Midrash. You are arguing against it being Midrash, but continue to describe it as such.

It sounds like the bible to me.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 3:08 pm

Mickiel;1486920 wrote: It sounds like the bible to me.
Precisely. A collection of fables & interpretations - midrash - exactly as Ted defined it. On this point we seem to be in agreement, yet you deny that we are.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Tue Sep 29, 2015 1:41 pm

The definition of midrash according to Scholar Goulder and The Rev Dr Rabbi Robert Daum of the Vancouver school of Theology and J. Spong and a host of others is 2 fold. It was and continues to be a method of interpretation, In biblical days it was also a method of writing. For instance the birth stories of which there are a few (divergent) are midrash. A method of writing making great use of metaphor and using earlier stories to show how important they felt a particular event was. For example Joshua was supposed to have crossed the Jordan on dry land. This is making use of the most important story of the Exodus crossing the Reed sea. This is to show how important the second story is. The crucifixion stories are also midrash. Jesus was crucified but the actual story is not historic in the way it was written. Once again an effort to append ancient stories to Jesus and his life.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Tue Sep 29, 2015 2:51 pm

Ted;1486989 wrote: The definition of midrash according to Scholar Goulder and The Rev Dr Rabbi Robert Daum of the Vancouver school of Theology and J. Spong and a host of others is 2 fold. It was and continues to be a method of interpretation, In biblical days it was also a method of writing. For instance the birth stories of which there are a few (divergent) are midrash. A method of writing making great use of metaphor and using earlier stories to show how important they felt a particular event was. For example Joshua was supposed to have crossed the Jordan on dry land. This is making use of the most important story of the Exodus crossing the Reed sea. This is to show how important the second story is. The crucifixion stories are also midrash. Jesus was crucified but the actual story is not historic in the way it was written. Once again an effort to append ancient stories to Jesus and his life.

The bible was written in one manner, but interpreted in another- that is midrash, how it was interpreted, not how it was written. The bible is not midrash, midrash was used on it later. As the original texts passed down through different hands, they read it differently; saw different meanings in it and added too and took away from the original texts; that is midrash. Telling the story as the interpreter understood it.