Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
1 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
A Paulogia episode I have found interesting. It's 19:22 long. (Original Post) Lady Freedom Returns Oct 2021 OP
Oh, boy! Poor Bart Ehrman (whatever). He started out as the most literal evangelical possible and Karadeniz Oct 2021 #1

Karadeniz

(23,327 posts)
1. Oh, boy! Poor Bart Ehrman (whatever). He started out as the most literal evangelical possible and
Wed Oct 27, 2021, 08:45 PM
Oct 2021

slowly evolved... sort of. He made one last stand at defending the historical truth of Jesus's life story, was crucified by actual historians for the same reasons he now uses against literalists...having become an atheist following his rationales' destruction. Ehrman threw the baby out with the bathwater. He needs to study the original movement more closely.

Paul clearly states that there are degrees to understanding his teachings: babies who can only handle milk and the mature who can assimilate the meat. Jesus says he will say one thing in public, but hide his higher truths in parables. The new testament consists of two levels of understanding.

Bauer proved that paleography also showed two levels existing from the beginning. In the West, the level of knowledge was usually stalled at Paul's baby's and Jesus's children's level. This focuses on the literal level and became the Orthodox or Roman belief system.

In the East, the heretics...so called Gnostics... pursued the hidden truths. When Ehrman described the grape statement by Jesus, he mocked it. But, it's exactly the sentiment we find throughout the gospels where grapes/wine/vinyards are used as a common symbol for spiritual values encouraging soul development.

Ehrman still doesn't understand that the gospels were ultimately not to be taken literally. A shame. The historicity of Jesus is unimportant to the underlying spiritual truths. They are not biographies. However, modern research into metaphysical phenomena strongly suggests that the parables' messages are true at the paranormal level.

To understand Christian writings, one should study the beliefs of the Gnostics, as far as we can know them. I have yet to read explanations of the parables which point to the unseen realities. By the way, to insist that such writings are factually true is to have very little faith. What is it to believe in only what you see? If you told an ancient Polynesian about snow, I double they'd believe in such a thing. Blind faith does no one any good. Jesus said to believe in him, but that you had to prove it in your life. Faith ranked below good works. John said you'd get nowhere without knowledge, gnosis.

Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»Atheists & Agnostics»A Paulogia episode I have...