I believe they probably didn't exist as two specific individuals, though I don't make a claim of knowledge in either direction.

1. Was Moses an actual person?

2. Was Abraham an actual person?

3. Was Isaac an actual person?

4. Was Jesus an actual person?

I wonder sometimes. But I also don't know the relevance one way or another. Is the grace of God any less if Moses wasn't an "actual" person?

Yes. But the gap of between the Old and New Testaments is quite clear in terms of both authorship and expected levels of historicity.

Are you going to present an affirmative argument for your position at some point?

If Moses, Abraham and Isaac weren't real people, then I don't see any reason to believe anything in the Old Testament.

If Moses, Abraham and Isaac weren't real people, then maybe God's grace isn't real either.

Since in Acts 24 the Apostle Paul said that he believed the OT in its entirety, I would expect the historicity of the OT to be 100% accurate.

Lord willing, and the creek don't rise.

You may not see any reason, but that doesn't mean those reasons don't exist. All you're saying here is that you lack intellectual nuance in your ability to interpret the Bible.

If it's not X, then *EVERYTHING* falls apart. Or maybe it just means you have made a mistake about X.

Maybe. But I would be able to make this claim even if Moses, Abraham, and Isaac *were* real. So it doesn't provide a convincing reason to accept or reject information.

You're assuming here that Paul's understanding of the Bible is also fully literal, or that it is impossible for him to be in some sort of theological error. I would myself agree that I believe the Old Testament in its entirety. I just wouldn't make the claim that I believe it as a literal collection of facts.

Not exactly. He mentions the books of the law, and the prophets, that's 5 + 17 = 22 books, not the complete OT which probably wasn't canonized at the time

Sorry I haven't made any substantive post lately. I've been working a lot and have been battling a series of colds/flu the past several weeks. Not a lot of energy left over for theological debates . Thank you for your patience.

While I believe that it is possible that Paul's understanding of the Bible isn't fully literal, I believe that it is not possible for Paul to be in "some sort of theological error" while writing under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

Let's take a look-see at Romans 5:12 in my beloved King James Version:

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Who is the "one man" in this verse? I'm unaware of any major commentary that says it is anyone other than Adam. (But since I haven't read dozens of commentaries, there may be another interpretation that I'm unaware of.)

He wasn't writing anything in Acts 24, which was the verse being referenced. You were asserting something specific about his understanding in a completely separate context than the one you've chosen to pursue here.

I believe he was referring to Adam, but I don't believe it necessitates the interpretation that you believe it does. You're assuming that the Jewish mindset from which this phrase was uttered presumes to make a factual claim and not a symbolic theological one.

Remember that Jewish understanding was through a multiplicity of interpretations. That is, they do not hold to a strict singular interpretation of their religious texts. So this would mean that assuming that Paul had in mind a specific interpretation and only that interpretation would almost certainly be an error.

And I'm not even sure that the question of whether Adam was a literal person was a question that Paul would have had an opinion about. The Pharisees were far more invested in the preservation and understanding of the law than something like whether Adam was a literal person.

We don't have many figures that would fit this description in the American mythology (the founding Fathers are close, but I can't think of something that's close enough to the idea I'm pursuing). So I'm going to do the next best thing and refer to Superman.

Superman once stood for "Truth, Justice, and the American Way." We can say that there's a sense in which he embodies these traits, which is to say that he is a symbolic representation of them. I can refer to Superman as if he were real while being fully aware that he's not real.

For example, "Superman would disapprove of your actions" would be a fully meaningful phrase despite the absence of a literal "Superman" to have such a thought. And it would be understood that Superman's disapproval had something to do with the behavior being out of alignment with the "American core values" that he represented.

You can ask, "But was Superman real?" And I could respond, "That's not the point." The literalness of Superman doesn't matter in light of the core values being communicated. I don't need to make an assertion one way or the other to communicate what I needed to communicate.

To bring it back to Paul, you could ask him, "But was Adam real?" and he might tell you, "It doesn't matter, because through Jesus we have received grace." In other words, that's not the point.

Practically nothing written in the Bible is literal. There is one important point that you guys miss in the whole discussion:
Even if we knew Jesus in person (lets say we have a time machine and go back in time and meet "Jesus") we would still see Jesus through our own eyes (interpretation, understanding)
=> "Jesus" is our interpretation of "Jesus" as long as we don't become "Jesus". This is actually (also my interpretation) what Jesus teaches. This is all the story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac is about. => Absolute obedience (or absolute faith) means give up on your own interpretation. If Abraham uses his own interpretation he will not sacrifice Isaac. If Jesus uses his own interpretation he will not go to the desert.

Is the grace of God any less if Jesus wasn't an "actual" person?

"Very truly I tell you," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

For God there is no difference between flesh (If there were a difference God would not be just), whoever becomes obedient, can do whatever Jesus did, no matter where he/she is born, no matter his/her color and no matter his/her race and no matter his/her religion.
"12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father (In flesh I will die). " / "5 Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?” 6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.” (You don't need me anymore)

(If any of you is interested to discuss this with me, you should consider starting a new thread because it is another topic)

1) The deeds are important not the names. One should believe in Moses, Jesus... because of their deeds not because of their names.
2) Perfect communication means understanding the intention of the words and not what the words literally mean. Even if the Apostle Paul said that he believed the OT in its entirety we still don't know his intention.
But when having faith in God is what all the Bible is about than everything what is quoted from Adam to Jesus is to be viewed as a lecture to learn faith => Who doubts in me and who doesn't give up on me! A good example is: "14 Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it." If Jesus did mean this literally and I were the fig tree than I would tell him, I have never done anything but what father told me, how about you? Tell me your history and what you did think about that girl when you were young.

Which would explain why the Jews were (and still are) largely clueless on theological matters.
Indeed, this was one of their huge errors.

Which helps explain why they were largely clueless.

That's the beauty of a fictional character; you can have them represent anything you want for any reason you want.

I for one would hate to have the disapproval of a fictional character.

What matters is the real source of the "core values."

"Hey, the Adam and Eve thingy is a really kewl story, and isn't that all that really matters? Interpret it any way you want, whatever floats your boat, it's all kewl baby!"

How do you know this?

A) Everything in the mind of the recipient is first censored than interpreted.
One of the good examples is The Chinese Whistle. Another one: Your Brain Is Hard-Wired to Love Trump https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...chology-213444

B) Everything in the mind of the narrator is disposed (to arrange or settle (matters) by placing into correct or final condition) than narrated.
1) Who am I talking to? (The recipient's level/condition of understanding)
2) Which information is relevant and necessary?
3) Why am I saying it? (In which way I want to manipulate/influence the recipient.)
A good example: Matthew 19:24-26 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?" Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
If " it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God" is true than "with God all things are possible" is wrong. If "with God all things are possible" is true than " it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God" is wrong.

If you can disprove A or B than my claim was wrong.

I would like to quote Jesus speaking in Matthew 19:8 from my King James Bible:

Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so.

I'm not trying to instigate a debate about divorce. I'm pointing out that Jesus clearly refers to Moses as a real person here. He is also making in plain that Moses wrote at least a parts of Genesis.

This was dumb on my part. My apologies.

All I can do with this is shrug. Jesus held to a significant portion of Jewish theology, and this is nothing more than naked accusations. There's no actual content to be found here. You're free to believe that the Bible is narrow enough so that it has exactly one meaning and exactly one interpretation. I think there's more depth there.

Literal people can also be chosen to represent anything you want for any reason you want. Some people view certain historical figures as heroes and some view them as villains. Such is the nature of symbolic meaning. You've gained nothing in your argument here.

Notice how this is off topic. Claiming God as the source of moral virtue does nothing for your argument. This is kind of a shotgun approach you're taking here.

Quote:

"Hey, the Adam and Eve thingy is a really kewl story, and isn't that all that really matters? Interpret it any way you want, whatever floats your boat, it's all kewl baby!"

You might notice that Jesus did similar things when he was challenged with questions. The redirection towards that which is central clarifies what things are important and which ones are pointless. You can choose to strain out the gnat and swallow the camel, and it doesn't bother me one bit.

Also, you should know better than to pull out a straw man. The existence of multiple valid ways to interpret information does not imply that all ways of interpreting information are valid.

Edit: Just saw your follow-up post. It's all good.

I disagree that this is a necessary conclusion. What you see as Jesus "clearly" referring to Moses as a real person, I can read as simply making a culturally relevant reference. I also would continue to hold the position that the point of Jesus' statement is not to clarify that Moses was an actual person, but rather to make a claim about the nature of divorce. Whether or not Moses was a literal figure would not change the theological significance of his statement.

I guess an analogy here might be to say that "the founding fathers believed X." It may be true that they all believed X, but it may also be that there were disagreements and it was merely a majority that believed X. Your reading would seem to say that there's no choice but to interpret the founding fathers as being completely uniform in their beliefs when the purpose of the claim was to say that the founding fathers agreed enough to codify X into their documents.

You're going to get yourself bogged down in proof-texting random claims if you're not careful. It's still coming back to the central question, which is where you should probably focus your attention.

Hi, Shahrad.

While I appreciate your detailed response, it failed in my opinion to defend your assertion that "Practically nothing written in the Bible is literal."

This is not at all the direction of the thread, but I just wanted to quickly check to see your response: what do you say to the overwhelming body of scientific evidence that demonstrates an "old" earth? As in at some point in this discussion of biblical literalism you will presumably get to the "OP" you've promised for some time and claim some biblical timeline statements are literally true. But if so, that appears to be in gross conflict with modern science. How do you rectify that?

I think we might have a "cart before the horse" situation here. I wouldn't say that "Jesus held to a significant portion of Jewish theology", but I would rather say that "Some of the Jews held to a significant portion of Jesus' teachings from the Scriptures." The reason being of course is that the Scriptures came from God, and that Jesus is God.


Thanks for your forbearance. Sorry you had to waste your time responding to gibberish.

YEC and "Old Earthers" have access to exactly the same evidence. The issue is in the interpretation of evidence, which is based on differing assumptions between the two camps. For example, Old Earthers assume uniformitarianism, while YEC typically do not. Uniformitarianism can not be proved or disproved, but is a background assumption when interpreting evidence.

That's about all I can say about that for now. My energy is kinda limited right now, so i'm using it right now to dialogue with Aaron on the "literalism" issue.

You raised some great points, that I'm sure we'll get to at some point.

Question for Aaron:

Of the fifty chapters in Genesis, could you identify any as being an accurate account of actual historical events?

I guess what's "as clear as day" to me is as "clear as mud" to you.

+1

I guess I'm too stoopid to follow the analogy here. The Godhead is of one mind in all things, while the founding fathers could be all over the map on a variety of things.

+1

And Jesus was a Jew. So is it unfair to say that Jesus held a Jewish theology?

No worries. This sort of thing happens when you get into a discussion. Not that long ago I was several posts deep into something before I realized I was in the wrong discussion.

It's more about "the founding fathers" being a meaningful cultural reference while not making specific claims about "the founding fathers."

Maybe I'll be more pointed: The statement "Remember that Moses taught us X" could be meaningfully interpreted regardless of whether Moses was a real person or just a culturally significant fictional character. The referent is understood regardless of whether the referent is literally real.