Posted: Oct 09, 2010 4:25 pm
by hotshoe
There have been strains of christianity which were not literal dating back to the formation of the church. Whether or not he would have believed in a talking snake, who knows. Whether he would have believed in the "flood covering the whole world", who knows. It wasn't official church doctrine in 200AD that every single word in the bible was meant to be understood literally ( I don't know when a christian church first came up with that idea). It's possible that a christian in Roman times would disbelieve in a literal flood for a similar reason we do -- because the Egyptian culture had an unbroken history extending before the supposed flood times, or because Roman scholars were familiar with other flood stories and would just take the Noah one as an exaggeration.

But we do have to wonder, if so little of their bible is "true" or "factual" to them, then why do they get to the part about the resurrection and suddenly insist it was literally, factually true ? What do they think it even means, that Jesus was bodily taken into heaven ? Where's that ? How, physically, did his body get there ? Yeah, yeah, I know it's a miracle, and miracles don't have to have sensible explanations. But, how do they pick which miracles to believe in as actual physical happenings, and which ones to ignore or view just as metaphors for some spiritual message ?