The topic was supposedly "How to Interpret Texts- Religious and Secular"

There has been no attempt or explanation on interpreting any secular text. Outside of the New Testament no religious text has been mentioned.

The topic is really "How to Interpret the New Testament?" It would have been straightforward to give the thread the right title.

I would have appreciated hearing about the texts of other religions.

The New Testament was not a document like a scientific paper subjected to peer review. It was a propaganda document by men of its time. To make sense of it one must examine the milieu in which it was written by looking at ancillary documents. Josephus' writings are most suspect because they have been modified by Christians to support the NT.

The Dead Sea Scrolls reveal much. They show, for one thing, that many of the tales concerning Jesus were given to an earlier figure. Jesus, if he existed at all, has been made into a mythic figure by having myths of the time put on him.

Anglican bishop Spong wrote "Christianity Must Change or Die." Among his ideas are:

1. Accounts of miracles that conflict with natural law are unbelievable.

2. The concept of a messiah is not believable.

3. Scripture was written by humans with the prejudices and concepts of their time and place. Mark 5:98 and 9:25 gives account of Jesus dealing with demonic possession. He was a man of his time with the knowledge of his time. We now know what was thought demonic possession was really mental illness.

4. Sickness is not a punishment from God.

5. A God who would subject his son to torture and death is a loathsome God.
That resonates with me as I find the story of the binding of Isaac a
horrible story. Abraham was a monster in being willing to sacrifice his son,
and a God who would ask him to do it is a loathsome creature.

Bishop Spong thinks it more important to bring reason to Christianity than
to seek converts to an unreasonable religion.

Damn well said david f.

Spong's approach to faith, I think, is far more persuasive, and doesn't entail enforced ignorance.

Boazy,

“Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.” – Bible, Matthew 2.16 KJV

The historical record demonstrates Herod died 4 BCE. Four years before Jesus' birth.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570553_2/Herod_the_Great.html

Boazy, I do appreciate Christians take supernatural occurrences “on faith”. Yet, to a secularist, the idea of Herod returning from the dead after four years, to direct a mass massacre of first-borns, is a huge stretch.

Albeit, as you have said previously, I do tend give weight to historically endorsed evidence, and can be influenced by that perspective. Alternatively, Christians are willing to accept the surreal, if the claim is in the Bible. I know/appreciate the stance, but less sure of its rationale.

Further, given the Romans, like the NAZIs, held records on just about everything; a mass-slaying, involving a resurrected Herod, I suspect would have been recorded.

More feasible, for me, is the Biblical writer [of Matthew] embellished Herod’s killing of his own first-born son to his first wife: An event that “is” recorded.

Also, in Mattew 2.15, there is reference to waiting in Eygpt until Herod’s death. The text reads as if it his first death, but given he had died already, when did Herod’s second death occur? If the King of Judea could come back once: Why not twice?

Would not, Jewish Ruler, Antipas, The Tetrarch of Galilee, need to have been involved in 1 CE? Why would the three wise men engage a live-dead person [it’s a bit like Schodinger’s cat :-) ] , rather than visit Galillee’s sitting Jewish ruler, Antipas?

Where was Herod during those four years Earth time of his death?

Regards.

Boaz: 'Joseph, the Acts of the Apostles and letters of Paul would give you a better, more informed perspective.
-blessings'

I see the historicity as transcendent of the theology, because the former gives the issue a premise which is not limited to belief. All life forms possess an inherent belief of a creator source, and this is the easiest premise to exploit, thus the historicity factor must be transcendent. IMHO, truthfullness is greater than truth, because the latter is subjective and elusive.

There is almost no histrical evidence of the NT writings, and the only thing which gives it a sense of possible vindication is not Josephus, but that there are 4 gospel writings; the inconsistancies in these 4 writings are actually in its favor, as opposed if these were perfectly alligned. However, there is still a vaccuum of authenticity of any contemporary evidence; not a single original copy has been found; not a single one which appears in Hebrew, in a period of extensive and commonplace writings.

What is says is, the christian belief is genuine and Godly inclined, while the veracity of the writing's original source points remain doubtful. In a sense, this too is in christian's favor, inferring a belief being inherent, rather than depending on the veracity of the Gospels - the belief would survive even if it were dislodged by some new discovery.

The situation is very chaotic: we have three seperate belief systems emerging out of the same vicinity, and all three are contradictory - meaning all three cannot be right. This precarious situation says that a revelation occuring again will not resolve the chaos if this comes from either christianity or islam, but only a Mosaic/OT revelation has the potential to resolve the contradictions: christians would not accept an islamic revelation w/o JC, and vice versa the muslims would not accept a contradicting revelation from Jesus. But since both the two later religions claim ascendence of the OT - only a Sinai style revelation would suffice. But strangely, this is not aspired for!

Christians claim to follow Jesus but reject his Jewish religion.

To remind people that Jesus was not a Christian and got his best lines from the Jewish Bible I wrote and sang the following to the tune of the jazz standard on the radio:

The Imitation of Christ

Six feet two, eyes of blue
Jesus Christ, he was a Jew
Has anybody seen my lord?

Big hooked nose, There he goes
Preaching so that everyone knows
Has anybody seen my lord?

Speared by a Roman
In the abdomen
Blood gushing out

Rose from the dead
So it is said
People believe without a doubt

Jesus died, still a Jew
He's a Jew so why aren't you?
Has anybody seen my lord?

“Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.” – Bible, Matthew 2.16 KJV"

It is precisely such premises which draw suspicion. Herod was surely not involved in any interaction with christianity or the 3 wise men. Herod's actions were strictly related to the rebelions of the Judeans to the implementations of decrees by Rome, which included the charge of heresy, forbiddence of circumsizion, the speaking of hebrew, the teachings of the OT, the sacrifising in honor of Rome, taxes, etc.

In fact, Herod did not implement Caligula's decree of heresy, which required Jews worshipping the image of a Roman emperor, realising this would cause guaranteed havoc; he was right - when Nero made the heresy factor encumbent in 65 CE, it resulted in Rome's greatest war - not recorded in the NT, thus 'suspicious', because it constitutes a lie-by-omission. The heresy charge was perfectly emulated by the Roman catholic church, in perverse contradiction of the OT laws, resulting in the murders of millions of innocent peoples: it is totally not credible that Jesus, or any figure in Judea, would condone the Gospels. That the last previous Pope finally declared that Jews had a seperate and independent covenant with the Father - indicates the wrong path adopted by the church for some 1800 years.

"LOVE THE STRANGER" is the correct test[OT]; here, "LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOUR" [NT] becomes a self-preservation premise.