I know this topic is going to seem weird, but one thing that a Biologos article said is that authors would tell something very figuratively to the Israelites, and this can mean that the flood didn’t happen, and that Adam and Eve didn’t exist. But let’s take Jesus resurrection for example. Why do we consider Jesus resurrection to be literal, but not the flood and Adam and Eve?
1 Like
Because they are nothing and He is everything.
PS The resurrection of Jesus would prove that He was God and thereby prove God. That there is God. Jewish late myths aren’t in the same league of claim by many orders of magnitude. The resurrection doesn’t prove those unconnected myths either.
Great question. I think that the telling and context are a bit different. Thomas put his hand in Jesus’ side, whereas the Adam and Eve story was highly figurative, written a bit like a poem; and very much an adaptation of myth from surrounding cultures.
The message of the OT was much different from the NT, too.
Anyway, I’m sure that others would have more to say about this.
Thanks. Blessings.
Randy
My post in gregoreite’s thread: “The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, just a metaphor?”:
Believing in Adam and Eve or the the Flood do not mean you believe in the Resurrection. There are Jews and Moslems who believe in the former, but do not believe in the Resurrection.
1 Like
Because Genesis is a book which shows our relationship to our Creator, not an engineering book.
While the resurrection of Jesus is a testimony of over 4 books and personal witnesses.
I consider the resurrection to be real because I feel like it was written as four separate biographies and is brought up often as a source of hope and ect…. I feel like the Tanakh points towards Christ and his resurrection. The four gospels are entire short books dedicated to mostly just a few years at the end of the messiahs life.
Genesis story of Adam and Eve are 3 chapters and they mostly are just the main focus on the last one and the story of Noah also spans just a few chapters and the entire set of stories stands well over a this and years in just 11 chapters verses dozens of chapters spanning 3. Really different genre types seem at play.
Well for one, we do have proof of his existence and crucifixion.
Not so much about the resurrection, but considering how there were people who genuinely believed they saw Jesus, and some stuff like the empty tomb and earthquake are accepted, it points to it a bit.
I may be wrong about some of this stuff.
3 Likes
Why do people say Moslems?
the question is how you understand the resurrection. How you look at miracles reveals if you are a materialist or not. If you insist the resurrection to be about a physical survival of death you are a materialist, like if you believe Jesus made alcohol to create a fake reality, hiding the embarrassment of not being rich enough to provide ample booze. What is even more significant is that you would want the son of God to defile the water of ritual purification and declare the wine more valuable than the water that has the power to cleanse you so you can present yourself at the Lords table. I have yet to see the person who becomes presentable after consuming alcohol, let alone why I would be impressed by a God speeding up an industrial process of wine making instead of turning water into a water that can cleanse me to remove what defiles me in his eyes like the water in baptism so I am acceptable to his sight.
Why some people call some people “Moslems”
- Islam is a religion which teaches that Allah is God and Mohammaed (or Muhammed) is Allah’s Prophet.
- The Arabic word for a person who believes in Islam, is “Muslim”. In Arabic, the word “muslim” means "one who submits, that is: a person who believes in and professes Islam.
- I’m pretty sure that the Arabic word “muslim” has had two pronunciations in English for a couple of centuries:
- Muslim, as in Arabic
- Moslem
I am not consistent. Sometimes, I spell it “Moslem”, and sometimes I spell it “Muslim”. Like I spell the Prophet’s name: Muhammad sometimes, and Mohammed sometimes.
1 Like
You’re doing fine.
Who is we? And what do mean by literal?
Jesus’ resurrection was a bodily resurrection to a spiritual body (1 Cor 15).
The flood literally happened but the earth is never described as a globe or planet in the Bible.
Adam and Eve literally existed but were not golems of dust and bone tempted by talking animals to eat magical fruit.
As for why some things are literal and some are not, this was the subject of another thread already.
Yeah, just figured out moslem was the old pronunciation of it. I thought it was a way to mock them at first lol.
2 Likes
It’s not about literal, it’s about historical. We consider Jesus resurrection to be historical because the description of it is found in texts purported to be histories and we have the writings of eye-witnesses who specifically claim to be writing about what they saw and heard so that posterity has a history. Plus, the documents of the Gospels were produced at a time when other eye-witnesses were alive and they could have said, “Come on guys, this is total fiction.” But they didn’t. Some of them were even executed for insisting it was true. We have historical records of these executions, we have other writings that refer to Jesus of Nazareth as a historical person. There is no doubt in any serious historian’s mind that Jesus existed and founded a sect of Judaism called the Way whose followers became known as Christians. Whether or not you believe the accounts that Jesus rose from the dead, no one is disputing that lots of people of that time period did believe them and the record of the resurrection was intended by the authors to communicate facts about a real event, not be a fictional story.
1 Like
The objective certainty of whether other people described in the Bible existed historically is far less. There is far less objective corroboration the farther back you go in time. On the other hand, you would expect less evidence for the existence of people farther back in time even if they did exist. But we can observe the accumulation of fantastic myths about people in the far past as well. So even if we don’t really have such good reason to doubt they existed, we do have good reason to doubt the literal historical accuracy of some of the stories told about them – and the more so the farther back in the past you go.
Persian influence via the British.
No we don’t. But as @Christy implies, we have first, second and third degrees of separation operating in the 50 years after His inferred life.
It proves he was worthy. After which he himself said all things are given to me.
The word says he is the perfect image of god, To which Jesus said these words are not my own, and I only do what our Father shows me. So when he speaks, who is speaking? And whose will is being done? Who can resist the will of God, all knees will bow.
If we speak to Jesus, we are also addressing God through the son. From this perspective, one could truthfully claim Jesus is God. From another perspective, Jesus being a man, sacrificing his separate will, we can truthfully separate him from God and say Jesus was the first man to inherit God’s fullness and authority. Both perspectives are acceptable to God according to the Word because of their intent are the same.
Or as you say “The only thing that matters is…”.
Sound right Klax?
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.