|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 2:55 pm
When I read the the Bible I keep in mind that it's not one book but many books by a collection of different authors and with many different audiences in mind and with particular layers of meaning conveyed that are of interest. Many of the "histories" conveyed are mythic histories that are meant to convey various experiences and particular understandings of God. An anthology of Christian literature if you will.
The OT was a collection of books chosen by a council of Rabbis and Hebrew leaders after the Fall of the Second temple in 70 CE. This was included in The Christian canon not only to include the Hebrew Christians that used these Scriptures but also to provide a historical reference for many of the sayings and teachings of the NT for the Gentile Christians and to illustrate the different paradigm of God, Jesus taught of as opposed to what was taught before him.
You have the Gospels included which not only provide a history and teachings of a man Yeshua that might have existed but to also mythically describe the archetype of how if God was on Earth here's what God would be like as a human and here is the example to follow. There were also various instructions in this texts on how to "see" and "experience" the God that Jesus was describing.
You have most of Paul's original letters included not only because he was very popular but because his teachings were geared toward Gentiles and provides various checks in place so one cannot only experience Yeshua's God without having to convert to Judaism first but to also to provide a context for those that have seen and experienced the Light and keep them from being driven mad by it.
Next you have Acts which was probably included to provide a "common ground" between the Hebrew and Gentile Christians and help unite the two factions. Recorded in James and the Pauline epistles are various "spats" and problems the Gentile and Hebrew Christians had with each other. As unity of the Christian community became a priority, this text was probably produced in order to make unity possible by showing what the Hebrew Christians and Gentile Christians had in common.
You then have "other letters" included which were meant to address long dead "rulings" and politics on what teachings should be accepted and condemning other teachings that are for the most part now long forgotten. Seeing as we now know there was never one Christianity at its inception, this makes the issues of the letters kinda pointless now, especially for those not claiming apostolic succession.
Finally you have the enigmatic texts of Revelations included to not only include the apocalyptic sects and to give an "ending" to the anthology. My personal take on this text is that was included to describe the process of Salvation and what pitfalls and things one should expect to experience internally until one is "reborn".
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 3:09 pm
To illustrate some of the layered meanings let's examine the phrase "son of". While yes this can convey lineage or descent, it also is a metaphor for "perfect image of", because it was believed that children were reflections of their parents. When Jesus is described as the Son of Man and the Son of God what is being conveyed is that Jesus is the perfect image of Adam and the perfect image of what God would be like as a human. An archetypal example, at the time of writing the texts, what standard one should follow when seeking to know of God and to live a holy life.
Worship in early Christianity had a different meaning than it does today. In early Christianity it meant emulate. When someone was described as worshiping Jesus back then, it meant they were emulating him, to act in accordance to the example, if God were a human, how would he have done things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 3:38 pm
Stop Dont Believin freelance lover I'm a biblical literalist in that I believe much of the Bible was literal at the time it was written. Obviously the meaning of many things have changed for us now, so we can't take certain things literally, and must understand them in the context they were written in.
Then, of course, there are things like the creation story which were never meant to be taken literally in the first place. What do you mean? It's been taken seriously for thousands of years, anyway.
Besides that, the two creation stories directly contradict one another, and Christian scholars are fairly certain they come from different initial sources. In the first story, animals are made before man, in the second, man is created before animals. Analysis of the writing styles also indicated different sources as well, based on writing style.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:53 am
When I was a Christian, I interpreted the Bible metaphorically.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 11:51 pm
I take the Bible with a grain of salt. It was written by man after all. I feel that many of the books of the Bible were written and twisted around by those writing them to feed the social, political and personal views of those who documented it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
