St. Paul was the only human who lived in the first and second centuries AD

[Caliga]

How many groups actually believe in the literal truth of everything in the Bible?

Good question.  Certainly the Born again Christian movement in North America does.

I wonder about outside North America though.

I would be willing to bet that this is a common position at modern-day American megachurches.  I have several co-workers who go to Southeast Christian (the biggest one here in Louisville)... I'd ask them if I knew I wouldn't get into trouble or end up being proselytized at.

[crazy canuck]

You think South American Catholics don't believe in the Bible?

A person can believe in the Bible without believing it is literally true.  Isnt that the position of the Catholic Church?

[Valmy]

Yeah, I know... I've read nearly all of the apocryphal gospels that are available to us today.

I have little personal interest in most of the OT, but I find the life of Jesus to be extremely interesting.

It is pretty hard to understand what the gospel writers were getting at without understanding the OT.  They were trying to portray him as similar to Moses, Elijah and so forth.  You can see that all over the early gospels.

Also the shift of the understanding of God from the tribal God who held the sun the sky so the Israelites could slaughter more Amorites to the more universal God of Isaiah is pretty fascinating.  You can see an expansion of conciousness going on, especially as the Jews become more helenized and start seeing their religion with the influence of Greek philosophy.  Good stuff.

[Caliga]

A person can believe in the Bible without believing it is literally true.  Isnt that the position of the Catholic Church?

Yes, the Catholic Church is most definitely not literalist.  You do have to accept all the basic tenets of the Church, but not the literal meaning of every single line.

[Caliga]

Also the shift of the understanding of God from the tribal God who held the sun the sky so the Israelites could slaughter more Amorites to the more universal God of Isaiah is pretty fascinating.  You can see an expansion of conciousness going on, especially as the Jews become more helenized and start seeing their religion with the influence of Greek philosophy.  Good stuff.

Actually are you familiar with the Gnostic opinion on the nature of God in the OT vs. the NT?

[Valmy]

A person can believe in the Bible without believing it is literally true.  Isnt that the position of the Catholic Church?

I think the Catholic Church, like most churches, is alot more militant and conservative in the third world than it is up here.

[Valmy]

Actually are you familiar with the Gnostic opinion on the nature of God in the OT vs. the NT?

Maybe...what is it again?

[Caliga]

Actually are you familiar with the Gnostic opinion on the nature of God in the OT vs. the NT?

Maybe...what is it again?

That there were actually two Gods... the God of the OT was vengeful, selfish, jealous, and evil, but the God of the NT was loving, forgiving, and good.  I forget how, but somehow Jesus represents the battle between these Gods and his death allowed the NT God to take over.  IIRC one of the Gods was named Ialdaboth and one Samael (I think).

[Valmy]

That there were actually two Gods... the God of the OT was vengeful, selfish, jealous, and evil, but the God of the NT was loving, forgiving, and good.  I forget how, but somehow Jesus represents the battle between these Gods and his death allowed the NT God to take over.  IIRC one of the Gods was named Ialdaboth and one Samael (I think).

Woah that is bizarre.  It almost sounds like the whole 'Rex Mundi' concept.

In any case as the OT goes on God becomes more and more like the NT God.

[crazy canuck]

I forget how, but somehow Jesus represents the battle between these Gods and his death allowed the NT God to take over.

Partly right.  God never does take over this earth.  It is always the domain of the Devil (the God of the OT who created the world).  Jesus came to show us the truth and imparted the secret wisdom (Gnosis) of our true selfs so that we can escape this world and join once again with God.

edit: however the importance of the OT to the NT cannot be understated.  It is the whole justification for Jesus being the messiah in the orthodox Gospels.

[Malthus]

How many groups actually believe in the literal truth of everything in the Bible?

Orthodox Jews (at least the first 2/3rds or so)

I don't think this is true at all. Orthodox Jews certainly regard the OT through the lens of the Talmud, which is anything but "literalist" in its approach.

[Valmy]

I don't think this is true at all. Orthodox Jews certainly regard the OT through the lens of the Talmud, which is anything but "literalist" in its approach.

Good point. They have that 'Oral Torah' going on.  It was the Sadducees who wanted a more literal textual approach and they lost.

[Valmy]

edit: however the importance of the OT to the NT cannot be understated.  It is the whole justification for Jesus being the messiah in the orthodox Gospels.

Yeah...too bad none of the things that Isaiah promised would happen when the Messiah came actually happened.

But um...you see...he will come again and do all that stuff.

[alfred russel]

This forces those who want it all to "fit" to come up with these elaborate explanations for how all this grossly contradictory crap can all be the verbatim Word of God.

It really is quite amusing.

To me, that's the first sign a particular Christian is not worth engaging in debate with: if they insist the Bible is the literal word of God, they have either a) not bothered to read most of it, or b) are incapable of analyzing what they've read to any meaningful degree.

To fahdiz's great credit, while he was in his Catholic phase he never claimed that the Bible was the literal word of God.

Yeah, but even if you accept that it isn't all literally true, it still has to make coherent sense, as a message.

Sure, teh genesis stories (for example) can be figurative, but then you ahve to figure out what that means, what message it is trying to send *instead* of being a literal account of creation - and half the time those messages are contradictory!

"My god, my god, why hast thou forsaken me?"

That is pretty damn hard to square with the central theme of Christianity. It is fun to see the hoops people will jump through to make it work, somehow.

I agree in general, especially in the line that you quote, but I disagree in terms of the creation stories. It isn't a leap at all to view those as figurative, and books have been written on all of the meaning in them. From the allegories of Jesus to prophesies in the Old Testament, the bible is consistent in that when god/jesus delivers a message, it may not be literal or immediately understandable.

[crazy canuck]

But um...you see...he will come again and do all that stuff.

Yet another one of the inconsistencies in Christain theology.  That and the fact that if a person actually reads the OT it is pretty clear the Prophets are not talking about a Jesus figure.

The real problem, this stuff gets preached to an uncritical audience and then policy is created in the public political sphere.  Which is the thing that probably get Berk most exercised and I dont blame him.