Christianity, Faith and Reason: What is Symbolic or Literal?

[paradox]

So, I am asking how much can be interpreted literally or symbolically?

It looks what you lack is esoteric knowledge of the Bible.

There are many things that should not be interpreted literary, one example is OT eschatology, understanding it can help you a lot to gain esoteric knowledge.
But this is a complex topic, so make sure you got it right.

[EricPH]

What seems significant for me is that whatever the facts the significance is such that history is divided into BC and AC in relation to the life of Jesus. Of course, this is interrelated with politics and the significance of Rome may play a part in this because it was where the Pope resides.

Rome already had a calendar. The so-called Roman republican calendar was supposedly introduced by the Etruscan Tarquinius Priscus (616-579 B.C.E.), according to tradition the fifth king of Rome. The Roman republican calendar was a dating system that evolved in Rome prior to the Christian era.

If Rome already had their own calendar, then why would they change it after they were implicated in the death of Christ?

[EricPH]

It's been more than 20 years since Dan Barker launched his Easter Challenge for Christians. All they had to do was to give a clear and consistent chronological account of the events supposedly happening that day, using the 4 gospels and Paul's account. Of course, it can't be done because each account says something different.

If five of us here today witnessed the same events that happened over a few days, then wrote about those events some years later. We would each give our own account and perception. We would each write down how these events affected us as an individual. When we read about these events two thousand years later, we have several accounts as opposed to just one. If there are several witnesses, this adds strength to any testimony.

Jesus did not write a word or a Gospel, but he inspired others to write down the events. If we have faith, then God is in control.

[JackDaydream]

Since the literal truths of the "scriptures" is palpably untrue, it sort of invalidates any authority for any of the symbolic meaning.
It would make far more sense to continue the secularising pathway that has been followed for well over a century, and that is the rejection of faith and all moral instructions in the scriptures to be replaced with more intelligently designed moral codes that have already proven to be far more effective than anything offered by the Abrahamic religions.
Since it is obvious that where such faith in scriptures remain is oppression, hatred and genocidal feelings between religious groups both inter-religiously and intra-religiously.
Faith has no useful part to play in any moral codes.

It does seem that faith in scriptures is bound up with divisions among people which is extremely problematic. However, this may be connected to larger aspects of human nature and politics, with so much being projected onto religion.

But I am not sure that faith can be rejected even if Christianity and all religions were eliminated because it is faith in any system of thought which keep people motivated. Also, it seems unlikely that religious perspectives will fàde completely at all. I also wonder what moral systems would develop on the basis of secular philosophy alone. There have been humanist and existential attempts but it is questionable if the essential aspects are that different from the basics of Judaeo- Christian or Buddhist ethics, with the emphasis being on respecting and contributing towards the wellbeing of others. It may be that secular philosophy is less otherworldly but it is also possible to go to the other extreme of lack of faith, to the perspective of nihilism.

[JackDaydream]

So, I am asking how much can be interpreted literally or symbolically?

It looks what you lack is esoteric knowledge of the Bible.

There are many things that should not be interpreted literary, one example is OT eschatology, understanding it can help you a lot to gain esoteric knowledge.
But this is a complex topic, so make sure you got it right.

I agree that the topic which I have created is extremely complex. I am interested in reading and understanding it as deeply as possible, including the esoteric aspects. My aim is not to provide a complete guide to the topic as I do not see myself as some kind of expert. I am simply opening a discussion, which is collaborative, and is not simply me stating my own ideas or knowledge. I am prepared to read in many directions and explore because it may be an important area of philosophy. If I make any mistakes, hopefully others may correct me, if they are able. I don't feel that the topic should not be approached simply because it is difficult and honest consideration of it and where this may lead.

[paradox]

So, I am asking how much can be interpreted literally or symbolically?

It looks what you lack is esoteric knowledge of the Bible.

There are many things that should not be interpreted literary, one example is OT eschatology, understanding it can help you a lot to gain esoteric knowledge.
But this is a complex topic, so make sure you got it right.

I agree that the topic which I have created is extremely complex. I am interested in reading and understanding it as deeply as possible, including the esoteric aspects. My aim is not to provide a complete guide to the topic as I do not see myself as some kind of expert. I am simply opening a discussion, which is collaborative, and is not simply me stating my own ideas or knowledge. I am prepared to read in many directions and explore because it may be an important area of philosophy. If I make any mistakes, hopefully others may correct me, if they are able. I don't feel that the topic should not be approached simply because it is difficult and honest consideration of it and where this may lead.

There is a saying that old testament "unlocks" or "is the key of" new testament and conversely.
What does this mean?
OT eschatology is basically all prophecies and other prophetic texts such as psalms that predict what will happen at the "end of the world".
NT make it happen with Jesus.

Here is the catch:
OT eschatology (prophecies, psalms and prophetic texts and contexts) are full of imagery and non literal verses.
You use NT (which is fulfillment) to interpret OT eschatology, and by doing so you develop esoteric knowledge because you'll know how to interpret OT eschatology.

[Angelo Cannata]

It is also very unlikely that Jesus ever existed and that the events described in the NT ever happened. A fun book to read, though.

I'm referring specifically to the Bible's narrative: whatever it depicts as historical events, they are not. The characters themselves, besides a few Roman names and Saul of Tarsus, are most likely fictional.

These ones are careless generalizations that are easy to criticize. Unfortunately, the Bible is such a complex series of books, wirtten in different epochs, by different authors, and then transmitted by other people, that it is impossible to make such generalizations. Each line, each word, each concept needs to be considered and examined seperately and in relationship with the rest.

About Jesus: there were undoubtedly in Palestine, at that time, many people called Jesus, several people going around Palestine with disciples and followers, claiming ability to make miracles and resurrect dead people; hundreds of people were killed by the Romans by hanging them on crosses. So, there were for sure several people with characteristics similar or identical to those told by the Gospel. Knowing this historical context, it is impossible to say that Jesus did not exist. A more grounded question would be this one: which one, among all these similar people who went around Palestine, can be identified with the one referred to by the Gospels? What did he really do, what can we know for sure about his life?

The same applies to saying that whatever the Bible depicts as historical events, they are not. According to this statement, we should say that Romans did not exist, Hebrews did not exist, St. Paul did not exist, Palestine did not exist, given that they are all reported by the Bible as historical events and places. It turns out even ridiculous.

It looks what you lack is esoteric knowledge of the Bible.
There are many things that should not be interpreted literary, one example is OT eschatology, understanding it can help you a lot to gain esoteric knowledge.

I would be curious to see how much seriousness, which is, ability to face science, academical study, historical criticism, is in “esoteric knowledge” of the Bible.

[Angelo Cannata]

other prophetic texts such as psalms that predict what will happen at the "end of the world".

I am curious to know where are prophecies in the Psalms.

[paradox]

other prophetic texts such as psalms that predict what will happen at the "end of the world".

I am curious to know where are prophecies in the Psalms.

For example psalm 22,1 is what Jesus said on the cross.
psalm 22 ends with an explanation why Jesus died. (God's will, he did it)

It looks what you lack is esoteric knowledge of the Bible.
There are many things that should not be interpreted literary, one example is OT eschatology, understanding it can help you a lot to gain esoteric knowledge.

I would be curious to see how much seriousness, which is, ability to face science, academical study, historical criticism, is in “esoteric knowledge” of the Bible.

esoteric knowledge is about interpretation or knowing how to interpret.

[JackDaydream]

So, I am asking how much can be interpreted literally or symbolically?

It looks what you lack is esoteric knowledge of the Bible.

There are many things that should not be interpreted literary, one example is OT eschatology, understanding it can help you a lot to gain esoteric knowledge.
But this is a complex topic, so make sure you got it right.

I agree that the topic which I have created is extremely complex. I am interested in reading and understanding it as deeply as possible, including the esoteric aspects. My aim is not to provide a complete guide to the topic as I do not see myself as some kind of expert. I am simply opening a discussion, which is collaborative, and is not simply me stating my own ideas or knowledge. I am prepared to read in many directions and explore because it may be an important area of philosophy. If I make any mistakes, hopefully others may correct me, if they are able. I don't feel that the topic should not be approached simply because it is difficult and honest consideration of it and where this may lead.

There is a saying that old testament "unlocks" or "is the key of" new testament and conversely.
What does this mean?
OT eschatology is basically all prophecies and other prophetic texts such as psalms that predict what will happen at the "end of the world".
NT make it happen with Jesus.

Here is the catch:
OT eschatology (prophecies, psalms and prophetic texts and contexts) are full of imagery and non literal verses.
You use NT (which is fulfillment) to interpret OT eschatology, and by doing so you develop esoteric knowledge because you'll know how to interpret OT eschatology.

It does seem that prophecy, which includes images of the future is bound up with its fulfilment. Jesus was seen as the expected Messiah and it is about the development of the Judaeo-Christian messianic expectation. One passage in the NT which seems to be important is that of the Transfiguration.

The Book of Revelation is also essential because it is here that the future remains unfinished and for 2 millennium this text has been a source for thinking about what may happen at the end of the world. So, in this respect the OT is the starting point for the prophetic imagination but the dream is not over and the past and future are both important as aspects of symbolic expectations with Christ at the centre.

Some writers have developed mythic elements, including Milton, Blake and Jung. Also, Rudolf Steiner describes the idea of the Cosmic Christ which may be important too. However, it is so difficult because there is also the danger of false prophets and, in that sense, it is probably important to exercise some caution in what to believe or think. Indeed, I do see that it is a difficult topic...

[paradox]

There is a saying that old testament "unlocks" or "is the key of" new testament and conversely.
What does this mean?
OT eschatology is basically all prophecies and other prophetic texts such as psalms that predict what will happen at the "end of the world".
NT make it happen with Jesus.

Here is the catch:
OT eschatology (prophecies, psalms and prophetic texts and contexts) are full of imagery and non literal verses.
You use NT (which is fulfillment) to interpret OT eschatology, and by doing so you develop esoteric knowledge because you'll know how to interpret OT eschatology.

The Book of Revelation is also essential because it is here that the future remains unfinished and for 2 millennium this text has been a source for thinking about what may happen at the end of the world. So, in this respect the OT is the starting point for the prophetic imagination but the dream is not over and the past and future are both important as aspects of symbolic expectations with Christ at the centre.

Bravo! good thinking.
understanding OT eschatology will surely help you to unlock revelation
Like how OT unlocks NT and conversely, same way OT + NT unlocks the book of revelation.

[Angelo Cannata]

For example psalm 22,1 is what Jesus said on the cross.
psalm 22 ends with an explanation why Jesus died. (God's will, he did it)

esoteric knowledge is about interpretation or knowing how to interpret.

The problem with these things is, as I said, that they lack contact with academy research, historical and literary criticism.

[JackDaydream]

There is a saying that old testament "unlocks" or "is the key of" new testament and conversely.
What does this mean?
OT eschatology is basically all prophecies and other prophetic texts such as psalms that predict what will happen at the "end of the world".
NT make it happen with Jesus.

Here is the catch:
OT eschatology (prophecies, psalms and prophetic texts and contexts) are full of imagery and non literal verses.
You use NT (which is fulfillment) to interpret OT eschatology, and by doing so you develop esoteric knowledge because you'll know how to interpret OT eschatology.

The Book of Revelation is also essential because it is here that the future remains unfinished and for 2 millennium this text has been a source for thinking about what may happen at the end of the world. So, in this respect the OT is the starting point for the prophetic imagination but the dream is not over and the past and future are both important as aspects of symbolic expectations with Christ at the centre.

Bravo! good thinking.
understanding OT eschatology will surely help you to unlock revelation
Like how OT unlocks NT and conversely, same way OT + NT unlocks the book of revelation.

I will try to read more in the OT and some reading around OT eschatology while I am working on the thread. Thanks for your contribution as I do wish for it to be as thoroughly researched as possible. It seems that I have plenty of homework to keep me busy..

Best wishes,
Jack

[paradox]

For example psalm 22,1 is what Jesus said on the cross.
psalm 22 ends with an explanation why Jesus died. (God's will, he did it)

esoteric knowledge is about interpretation or knowing how to interpret.

The problem with these things is, as I said, that they lack contact with academy research, historical and literary criticism.

you can always verify your esoteric understanding against interpretation of the Catholic church.
as long as it's same you're fine, there is no need for exegesis or taking historical facts into account.

[JackDaydream]

For example psalm 22,1 is what Jesus said on the cross.
psalm 22 ends with an explanation why Jesus died. (God's will, he did it)

esoteric knowledge is about interpretation or knowing how to interpret.

The problem with these things is, as I said, that they lack contact with academy research, historical and literary criticism.

you can always verify your esoteric understanding against interpretation of the Catholic church.
as long as it's same you're fine, there is no need for exegesis or taking historical facts into account.

I am a little confused because, while I believe in research and honesty in research, what you have just said makes it appear as if the Catholic church is the one and only authority. Surely, this is a bit of an authoritarian approach and understanding of historical facts do matter.